BREACHES  OF 
ANGLO-AMERICAN  TREATIES 

A  Study  in  History  and  Diplomacy 


BY 
JOHN  BIGELOW 

Major  U.  S.  Army,  retired 
Author  of  American  Policy,  World  Peace,  etc. 


WITH  THREE  MAPS 


flew  Korft 

STURGIS  &  WALTON 

COMPANY 

1917 


4  2? 


^7 


Copyright,  1917 
Bt  JOHN  BIGELOW 

Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published.  February,   1817. 


PEEFACE 

'*A  declaration  by  the  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled/' 
commonly  known  as  THE  DECLARATION  OF 
INDEPENDENCE,  proclaimed  to  the  world  the 
first  quickening  of  that  sovereign  power  which  was 
to  develop  through  inorganic  association,  and  loose 
confederation,  into  the  firm,  indissoluble  union 
now  constituting  the  Republic  of  the  United  States 
of  America.  In  that  famous  document  the  new 
infant  nation  attested  its  *^  decent  respect  to  the 
opinions  of  mankind"  by  specifying  the  several 
causes  which  impelled  it  *^to  the  separation." 
From  that  day  to  this,  through  a  singular  variety 
of  vicissitudes,  it  has  conducted  its  affairs  with  a 
regard  for  the  opinion  of  other  nations  at  least 
equal  to  that  shown  by  its  mother  country.  Yet 
only  a  few  years  ago,  incidentally  to  the  public  dis- 
cussion of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty,  the  United 
States  was  arraigned  by  the  British  press  as  lack- 
ing in  the  sense  of  honor  that  holds  a  nation  to  its 
promise.  The  Saturday  Review  could  not  expect 
*'to  find  President  Taft  acting  like  a  gentleman." 
**To  imagine,"  it  said,  **that  American  politicians 

V 


Preface 

would  be  bound  by  any  feeling  of  honor  or  respect 
for  treaties,  if  it  would  pay  to  violate  them,  was 
to  delude  ourselves.  The  whole  course  of  history 
proves  this.''  The  London  Morning  Post  charged 
the  United  States  with  various  infractions  of  the 
Treaty  and  said:  **This  is  surely  a  record  even 
in  American  foreign  policy;  but  the  whole  treat- 
ment of  this  matter  serves  to  remind  us  that  we 
had  a  long  series  of  similar  incidents  in  our  rela- 
tions with  the  United  States.  Americans  might 
ask  themselves  if  it  is  really  good  foreign  policy 
to  lower  the  value  of  their  written  word  in  such  a 
way  as  to  make  negotiations  with  other  powers 
difficult  or  impossible.  The  ultimate  loss  may  be 
greater  than  the  immediate  gain.  There  might 
come  a  time  when  the  United  States  might  desire 
to  establish  a  certain  position  by  treaty,  and  might 
find  her  past  conduct  a  serious  difficulty  in  the 
way.''  More  recently  and  presumably  with  more 
deliberation,  a  British  author  says :  '*  Treaties,  in 
fact,  only  bind  the  policy  of  the  United  States  as 
long  as  they  are  convenient.  They  are  not  really 
worth  the  labour  their  negotiation  entails  or  the 
paper  they  are  written  on.  It  is  well  that  this  po- 
sition should  be  realised,  as  it  may  save  a  great 
deal  of  fuss  and  disappointment  in  the  future."  ^ 
Other  organs  of  the  European  press,  taking  their 

^  Common  Sense  in  Foreign  Policy  by  Sir  Harry  Johnston,  p. 
89. 

vi 


Preface 

cue  apparently  from  such  deliverances  as  these, 
expressed  themselves  to  the  same  effect. 

The  standing  of  a  nation  as  to  integrity  is  in- 
deed of  the  greatest  practical  importance,  noi  only 
to  itself,  but  also  to  other  nations.  Eegard  for 
treaties  is  essentially  a  matter  of  fact,  and  should 
therefore  be  ascertainable  from  history  or  from 
the  material  of  which  history  is  made.  The  fol- 
lowing study  is  devoted  to  determining  the  rela- 
tive trustworthiness  of  two  great  nations  as  indi- 
cated in  their  conventional  intercourse  with  each 
other.  Beginning  with  the  treaty  of  peace  at  the 
end  of  our  war  of  independence,  it  considers  all 
the  treaties,  conventions,  and  similar  agreements 
negotiated  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  that  may  be  regarded  as  broken  by  either 
of  the  contracting  parties,  sets  forth  and  discusses 
the  infraction  in  each  case,  and  ends  with  a  sum- 
marising of  the  records  on  both  sides  and  a  bal- 
ancing of  the  accounts. 

About  two-thirds  of  the  work  is  taken  up  with 
the  treaty  negotiated  in  1850  by  our  Secretary  of 
State  John  M.  Clayton  with  the  British  minister 
to  the  United  States,  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer. 
This  apportionment  of  space  seems  justified  by 
the  preeminent  importance  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty,  by  the  complexity  and  intrinsic  interest  of 
the  questions  to  which  it  gave  rise,  and  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  author  has  new  light  to  shed 

vii 


Preface 

upon  the  negotiations  and  upon  the  personality  of 
Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  obtained  from  the  Clayton 
Papers,  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 

This  work  is  not  what  is  called  a  "war  book''; 
that  is,  it  was  not  written  with  a  view  to  forming 
public  opinion  on  any  phase  or  feature  of  the  pres- 
ent world  war.  It  was  begun  and,  but  for  some 
revision  and  amplification,  was  finished  before  this 
unprecedented  contest  commenced. 

The  enactment  of  a  treaty  consists  of  a  number 
of  distinct  steps  or  stages:  (1)  the  preparation  of 
a  draft,  or  protocol,  (2)  the  signing,  (3)  the  rati- 
fication, and  (4)  the  exchange  of  ratifications. 
Being  thus  completed  and  sanctioned,  the  treaty  is 
proclaimed  or  published.  This  may  be  necessary 
to  its  going  into  efiFect,  but  ordinarily  a  treaty  be- 
comes effective  on  the  exchange  of  ratifications. 
A  treaty  is  said  to  be  concluded  when  it  is  signed. 
It  is  customary  to  designate  treaties  by  the  date  of 
their  signing,  but  in  these  pages  they  are  desig- 
nated by  the  date  of  the  exchange  of  their  ratifica- 
tions, when  known. 

Besides  the  three  maps  accompanying  the  work, 
an  ordinary  map  of  Central  America  may  be  found 
helpful  in  the  perusal  of  Chapters  III,  IV  and  V. 

John  Bigelow. 

125  E.  57  street, 
New  York, 

January  23,  1917. 

viii 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTEB  PAGl 

Preface v 

I  FiBST  Tbeaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784).  Teeaty  of 
AiUTY,  Commerce  and  Navigation  (Jay  Treaty, 
1795)         3 

II  Second  Treaty  of  Peace  (Treaty  of  Ghent,  1815). 
Convention  for  Indemnity  Under  the  Award  of 
THE  Emperor  of  Russia  (1823).  Rush-Bagot 
Agreement  (1818).  Convention  Respecting  Fish- 
eries   (1819) 22 

III  The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty   (1850).    Introduction. 

The  Mosquito  Coast.    The  Negotiations     ...     37 

IV  The     Protectorate     Under     the     Clayton-Bulv^eb 

Treaty 91 

V    The  Clayton-Bulweb  Treaty    (Concluded).    Belize, 

OR  British  Honduras.    The  Bay  Islands     .     .     .   109 

VI  The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871).  General  Con- 
clusion     165 

Appendices 187 

Bibliography 231 

Index 237 

I^IAPS  AT  BACK  OF  BOOK 

1.  British  settlements  and  dominions  in  the  Caribbean  Sea 

in   1850  and   in    1852 

2.  .The  Mosquito  Shore  before  and  after  it  ceased  to  be  a 

British   Protectorate 

3.  .British  Honduras  before  and  after  it  became  a  British 

Possession        

zi 


BREACHES  OF 
ANGLO-AMERICAN  TREATIES 


BREACHES  OF  ANGLO- 
AMERICAN  TREATIES 


FiKST  Teeaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784) 

Treaty  of  Amity,  Commeece  and  Navigation 

(Jay  Treaty,  1795) 

Provisional  Articles  and  Definitive  Treaty  of 
Peace,  1783  and  1784 

The  termination  of  our  Eevolutionary  War  was 
effected  by  two  successive  treaties : 

1.  Provisional  articles  concluded  in  1782  and 
proclaimed  in  1783. 

2.  A  definitive  Treaty  of  Peace,  signed  in  1783 
and  ratified  in  1784. 

In  each  of  these  treaties  was  an  Article  VII  con- 
taining the  stipulation: 

His  Britannic  Majesty  shall  with  all  convenient  speed, 
.  .  .  withdraw  all  his  armies,  garrisons,  and  fleets  from 
the  said  United  States,  and  from  every  post,  place,  and 
harbor  within  the  same. 

3 


Chapter  I 

On  the  25th  of  December,  1784,  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin wrote  from  Passy  to  the  President  of  Congress : 

With  respect  to  the  British  court,  we  should,  I  think, 
be  constantly  upon  our  guard,  and  impress  strongly  upon 
our  minds  that,  though  it  has  made  peace  with  us,  it 
is  not  in  truth  reconciled  either  to  us  or  to  its  loss  of  us, 
but  still  flatters  itself  with  hopes  that  some  change  in 
the  affairs  of  Europe,  or  some  disunion  among  our- 
selves, may  afford  them  an  opportunity  of  recovering 
their  dominion,  punishing  those  who  have  most  offended, 
and  securing  our  future  dependence.  ...  In  these  cir- 
cumstances we  cannot  be  too  careful  to  preserve  the 
friendships  we  have  acquired  abroad,  and  the  union  we 
have  established  at  home,  to  secure  our  credit  by  a 
punctual  discharge  of  our  obligations  of  every  kind,  and 
our  reputation  by  the  wisdom  of  our  councils,  since  we 
know  not  how  soon  we  may  have  a  fresh  occasion  for 
friends,  for  credit,  and  for  reputation. 

Never  did  old  Ben  Franklin  give  more  signal 
evidence  of  his  sagacity.  Nearly  ten  years  later, 
on  the  28th  of  October,  1795,  another  treaty  was 
ratified  with  Great  Britain.  It  contained  the  fol- 
lowing provision  (Article  II) : 

His  Majesty  will  withdraw  all  his  troops  and  garrisons 
from  all  posts  and  places  within  the  boundary  lines  as- 
signed by  the  Treaty  of  Peace  [1784]  to  the  United 
States.  This  evacuation  shall  take  place  on  or  before 
the  first  day  of  June,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
ninety  six. 

The  delay  in  carrying  out  the  original  stipula- 

4 


First  Treaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784) 

tion,  Great  Britain  sought  to  justify  by  charging 
the  United  States  with  violating  the  following 
Article  contained  in  both  treaties.^ 

Article  IV.  That  creditors  on  either  side  shall  meet 
with  no  lawful  impediment  to  the  recovery  of  the  full 
value  in  Sterling  money  of  all  bona  fide  debts  heretofore 
contracted. 

Article  VII  allowed  Great  Britain  a  **  conven- 
ient * '  period  in  which  to  withdraw  its  troops.  Ar- 
ticle IV  allowed  the  United  States  no  time  in  which 
to  remove  lawful  impediments  to  the  recovery  of 
debts.  The  reason  was  that  these  did  not  have 
to  be  removed.  They  were  simply  to  be  disre- 
garded or  passed  by.  The  provision  was,  not  that 
there  should  be  no  such  lawful  impediments,  but 
that  creditors  should  not  meet  with  any.  To  meet 
with  one  it  was  necessary  to  bring  suit  and  to  have 
some  law  admitted  in  bar  of  trial.^  All  that  was 
necessary  to  prevent  this  was  to  have  the  courts 
recognize  the  treaty^  as  binding  upon  them. 
This  if  it  could  be  done  at  all,  would  have  been 

iGrenville  to  King,  April  19,  1800.  Am.  State  Papers,  For. 
ReL,  II,  398.  The  violation  as  originally  charged  embraced  the 
IV,  V,  and  VI  Articles  of  the  two  treaties  (Hammond  to  Jeffer- 
son, Nov.  30,  1791,  and  Meh.  5,  1792,  Id.,  189,  197).  The  last 
two  articles  were  dropped,  it  would  seem,  upon  Jefferson's  dem- 
onstration of  their  observance  (Jefferson  to  Hammond,  May  29, 
1792,  Id.,  202-205). 

2  Ware  vs.  Hamilton,  3  Dallas,  218. 

3  Either  of  the  treaties  mentioned.  They  are  alike  so  far  as 
we  consider  them. 

5 


Chapter  I 

accomplished  by  the  proclamation  of  the  treaty. 
Owing  to  the  feebleness  of  the  central  government, 
it  was  not  so  accomplished,  and  for  this  reason  the 
Constitution  adopted  in  1789  provided  that  trea- 
ties then  made  or  which  should  be  made  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  should  be  the  su- 
preme law  of  the  land,  binding  on  the  judges  in 
every  State,  anything  in  the  constitution  or  laws 
of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The 
words  that  **  creditors  shall  meet  with  no  lawful 
impediment  in  the  recovery  of  all  such  debts" 
mean  that  **when  the  creditors  apply  to  a  court 
of  justice,  no  law  shall  be  pleaded  in  bar  to  a  judg- 
ment for  their  debts."  ^  Even  this  constitutional 
provision,  though  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  in  favor  of  the  creditors,  as 
giving  them  the  right  to  sue  without  regard  to 
the  validity  or  invalidity  of  a  state  law,^  did  not 
wholly  repair  the  fault  of  the  Government  in  mak- 
ing the  indiscreet  engagement.  The  Constitution 
put  the  treaty  above  the  laws  or  constitution  of  a 
State,  but  not  above  the  laws  or  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  The  latter  reserved  to  the  sev- 
eral States  certain  rights.  Alleging  these  reser- 
vations as  their  justification,  the  States,  in  sev- 
eral cases,  repudiated  the  treaty  as  law  and 
thereby  put  the  central  government  in  the  posi- 
tion of  having  broken  it. 

1  Ware  V8.  Hamilton,  3  Dallas,  218. 

2  Id,  199. 

6 


First  Treaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784) 

When  the  treaty  was  made,  its  observance  by 
the  United  States  depended  on  the  voluntary  com- 
pliance with  it  by  all  the  States  or  such  a  change 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  would 
empower  the  central  government  to  compel  them  to 
comply  with  it.  There  was  little  or  no  ground  for 
counting  upon  either  of  these  alternatives.  This 
circumstance  was  accepted  by  Great  Britain  as  a 
condition  of  the  compact  when  she  ratified  it.  For 
its  consequences,  however  injurious  to  her,  she  had 
no  legal  redress.^  If  she  meant  to  guarantee  the 
execution  of  Article  IV  by  retaining  possession  of 
certain  posts,  or  otherwise,  she  should  have  so 
stipulated  in  the  treaty.  As  she  did  not  so  stip- 
ulate, she  was  obligated  to  withdraw  all  her  garri- 
sons from  the  United  States  **with  all  convenient 
speed.*'  The  orders  for  evacuating  New  York, 
the  largest  post  she  had,  were  received  in  that 
place  in  April,  1783.  The  operation  was  com- 
pleted by  the  end  of  November.  The  smaller 
Western  posts  might  have  been  evacuated  in  much 
less  time.  Allowing  a  month  for  the  transmission 
of  the  necessary  orders  from  New  York,  in  case 
the  orders  had  to  go  through  there,  and  a  few 
weeks  for  their  execution,  all  the  posts  might  have 

1  Referring  hereto,  Gouvemeur  Morris  said  to  Pitt  (May  21, 
1789)  :  "Your  natural  and  proper  course  was  to  comply  fully  on 
your  part,  and  if  then  we  had  refused  a  compliance,  you  might 
rightfully  have  issued  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  such  of 
your  subjects  as  were  injured  by  your  refusal."  {Am.  8tate 
Papers,  For.  Rel.y  I,  124). 

7 


Chapter  I 

been  evacuated  by  the  end  of  May,  1783.^  It  was 
October,  1796,  when  at  Michilimackinac,  later 
Mackinac,  the  last  post  to  be  evacuated,  the  Brit- 
ish Union  Jack  was  hauled  down  and  replaced 
by  the  Stars  and  Stripes.^  This  was  thirteen 
years  after  the  date  stipulated  in  the  Treaty  of 
1783,  and  at  least  three  months  after  the  one 
agreed  upon  in  the  Treaty  of  1795.  The  date  of 
Great  Britain's  violation  of  the  treaty  may  be 
considered  as  June,  1783,  when  Mackinac  should 
have  been  evacuated  and  was  not. 

Great  Britain  held  back  to  await  the  execution 
of  the  treaty  by  the  United  States.  This  she  had 
no  more  right  to  do  than  the  United  States  had 
to  await  its  execution  by  Great  Britain.  The  re- 
moval of  impediments  to  the  payment  of  debts  was 
not  a  condition  precedent  to  the  withdrawal  of 
the  British  troops. 

But  quite  independently  of  the  treaty,  Great 
Britain  was  loth  to  loosen  her  last  hold  on  the  ter- 
ritory of  her  revolted  colonies.  As  Benjamin 
Franklin  had  anticipated,  she  desired  to  postpone 
as  long  as  possible  the  final  surrender  of  a  val- 
uable region.  She  hoped  that  the  new  Union 
would  not  hold  together  and  that  a  coveted  terri- 
tory would  thus  revert  to  her.^    There  was  every 

iJeflferson  to  Hammond,  May  29,  1792. 

2  The  British  Evacuation  of  the  United  States  by  H.  C.  Osgood, 
and  University  of  Toronto  Studies  in  History,  I,  100. 

3  University  Studies,  University  of  Toronto,  I  Series,  Vol.  2. 
See  also  same,  vol.  i,  1896,  pp.  100,  101. 

8 


First  Treaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784) 

prospect,  for  a  time,  that  the  scattered  inhabitants 
residing  in  the  country  west  and  north  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies  would  again  seek  British  political  con- 
nection. When  the  boundaries  of  Upper  Canada 
came  to  be  stated  it  was  thought  best  to  make 
them  as  indefinite  as  possible,  so  that,  without  any 
alteration  in  their  description,  the  whole  of  that 
portion  of  the  Province  of  Quebec  which  had  been 
surrendered  to  the  United  States  by  the  Treaty 
of  1783  might  again  be  acquired  and  incorporated 
in  the  Province  of  Upper  Canada.^ 

Great  Britain  did  not  content  herself  with  re- 
taining the  posts  which  she  held  at  the  date  of 
the  treaty.  Not  only  did  she  fail  to  return  them 
as  she  had  engaged  to  do,  she  aggravated  this 
breach  of  faith  by  the  lawless  acquisition  of  an- 
other one.  In  April,  1794,  three  companies  of 
British  regulars  stole  into  the  territory  of  the 
United  States,  penetrated  to  the  rapids  of  the 
Miami  in  the  southern  part  of  what  is  now  the 
State  of  Ohio,  and  built  a  fort  there  which  was 
called  Fort  Miami.  This  flagrant  violation  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States  was  maintained 
until  the  general  abandonment  of  the  Western 
posts  in  1796. 

The  withdrawal  of  his  Majesty's  forces  was  to 
be  executed  ^^  without  causing  any  destruction  or 

1  University  of  Toronto  Studies  in  History,  I,  100,  101. 

9 


Chapter  I 

carrying  away  any  negroes  or  other  property  of 
the  American  inhabitants ' '  (Art.  VII,  both  trea- 
ties). It  was  a  part  of  the  system  of  warfare 
adopted  by  the  British  when  operating  in  the 
slave  States,  to  encourage  the  slaves  to  desert 
from  their  owners,  promising  them  freedom.  The 
conclusion  of  peace  found  them  with  many  of  these 
helpless  people  on  their  hands.  Having  to  choose 
between  breaking  the  promise  that  they  had  made 
them  and  violating  their  treaty  with  the  United 
States,  they  chose  the  latter  and  carried  away 
with  their  troops  a  considerable  number  of  slaves. 
They  refused  to  compensate  the  owners  on  the 
ground  that  slaves  were  legitimate  captures  and, 
as  such,  the  property  of  the  captors,  to  be  dis- 
posed of  as  they  saw  fit ;  that  in  accordance  with 
this  principle  they  had  been  set  free ;  that,  being 
free,  they  belonged  to  no  one  and  consequently  it 
was  no  breach  of  treaty  to  carry  them  away.^ 
The  exportation  of  slaves  commenced  at  New 
York,  as  early  at  least  as  May,  1783. 

What  was  the  earliest  case  of  violation  of  the 
treaty  on  the  part  of  the  United  States?  Under 
date  of  March  5,  1792,  Mr.  Hammond,  the  British 
minister  at  Philadelphia,  addressed  a  long  com- 
munication to   Thomas  Jefferson,   Secretary  of 

1  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  Vieic,  pp.  89,  90.  Tlie  number  of  these 
slaves  is  not  accurately  known.  It  is  given  by  Benton  as  3,000. 
Jefferson  gives  the  number  of  negroes  carried  away  as  more  than 
3,000   (Jefferson  to  Hammond,  May  29,  1792). 

10 


First  Treaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784) 

State,  setting  forth  alleged  infractions  of  Articles 
IV,  V,  VI.  Article  V,  so  far  as  it  differed  ma- 
terially from  Article  IV,  was  recommendatory. 
It  only  required  the  Congress  to  recommend  to 
the  States  certain  measures  looking  to  the  protec- 
tion of  British  subjects  in  their  persons  and  prop- 
erty. These  measures  the  Congress  recommended 
earnestly  and  in  bona  fide.  That  such  recommend- 
ations were  not  invariably  adopted  and  carried 
out  was  not  the  fault  of  the  Congress  nor  was  it 
a  violation  of  the  treaty.^  Charges  under  Article 
V  may  therefore  be  omitted  from  consideration. 
Article  VI  prohibited  the  persecution  of  British 
subjects  by  confiscation  or  confinement,  on  ac- 
count of  participation  in  the  war.^  Violations  of 
either  Article  IV  or  Article  VI  could  be  substan- 
tiated only  by  legal  decisions.  Mr.  Hanunond 
cited  but  six.^     The  earliest  of  these  was  the  case 

1  JeflFerson  to  Hammond,  May  29,  1792. 

2  Art.  VI.  That  there  shall*  be  no  future  confiscations  made, 
nor  any  prosecutions  commenced,  against  any  person  or  persons 
for  or  by  reasons  of,  the  part  -VNhich  he  or  they  may  have  taken 
in  the  present  war;  and  that  no  person  shall,  on  that  account, 
suffer  any  future  loss  or  damage,  either  in  his  person,  liberty,  or 
property;  and  that  those  who  may  be  in  confinement  on  such 
charges,  at  the  time  of  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty  in  America, 
shall  be  immediately  set  at  liberty,  and  the  prosecution  so  com- 
menced be  discontinued. 

3  1.  William  Neale's  Executors  vs.  Comfort  Sands.  Decided  in 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Xew  York  [January  term,  1785]. 

2.  Osborne  vs.  Mijflin's  Executors.     Decided  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania   [9  Oct.,   1786]. 

3.  Hoare  vs.  Allen.    Decided  in  the  same  court  [April  term, 
1789]. 

11 


Chapter  I 

of  a  British  subject,  Waddington,  who  during  the 
British  occupation  of  New  York  tenanted  a  brew- 
house  in  that  city  belonging  to  an  American,  Eut- 
gers,  who  resided  without  the  British  lines.  Be- 
ing sued  for  trespass  in  an  inferior  court  of  New 
York,  Waddington,  defended  by  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton, pleaded  Article  VI  of  the  treaty  and  pro- 
duced orders  from  the  Commanding-General  and 
from  the  Quartermaster-General,  authorizing  his 
occupation  of  the  premises.  The  court  found  him 
not  guilty  for  the  period  covered  by  the  order  of 
the  Commanding- General,  but  guilty  for  the  time 
covered  only  by  that  of  the  Quartermaster-Gen- 
eral. From  this  decision  he  appealed,  but  before 
a  final  decision  was  rendered,  he  agreed  with  the 
plaintiff  on  a  compromise  involving  the  payment 
of  a  sum  of  money.  The  suit  was  thus  disposed 
of.  It  is  perhaps  debatable  whether  such  issue 
of  an  incomplete  process  of  law  and  voluntary 
compromise  was  a  violation  of  the  treaty;  but, 
admitting  that  it  was,  it  took  place  on  the  17th  of 
August,  1784,  more  than  a  year  after  the  violation 

4.  Stewardson,  administrator  of  Mildred  vs.  Dorseif.     Decided 
In  the  General  Court  of  Maryland  [after  1  May,  17851. 

5.  Rutgers  vs.   Waddington.     Decided  in  the  Mayor's  Court 
of  New  York   [17  August,  17841. 

6.  John  Smith  Hatfield,  at  a  court  of  oyer  and  terminer  at 
Bergen,  New  Jersey,  August,  1789. 

ITte  dates  inserted  in  brackets  are  obtained  from  the  judicial 
records  of  the  cases.  The  item  inserted  in  case  4,  is  determined 
from  the  report  of  the  case  {Md.  Rep.,  Harris  and  McHenry,  III, 
453). 

12 


First  Treaty  of  Peace  (1783  and  1784) 

of  the  treaty  by  Great  Britain.  Had  there  been 
any  valid  case  prior  to  this  one,  it  is  at  least  prob- 
able that  Mr.  Hammond  would  have  included  it 
in  his  list  with  its  date. 

Jefferson  dated  the  breach  of  the  treaty  by 
Great  Britain  from  April,  1783,  when  orders  were 
received  in  New  York  for  the  evacuation  of  that 
place,  and  orders  should  have  been  received,  but, 
were  not,  for  the  evacuation  of  the  Western  posts. 
He  dates  the  breach  of  it  by  the  United  States 
from  the  passage  of  a  certain  law  by  the  State  of 
Virginia  in  December,  1783,  *^nine  months  after 
the  infractions  committed  by  the  other  party. '^^ 

Treaty  of  Amity,  Commerce  and  Navigation 
(Jay  Treaty,  1795) 

In  1795  we  ratified  a  treaty,  the  first  Article  of 
which  declared: 

There  shall  be  a  firm,  inviolable  and  universal  peace 
and  a  true  and  sincere  friendship,  between  his  Britannic 
Majesty  and  his  heirs  and  successors,  and  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  between  their  respective  coun- 
tries, territories,  cities,  towns,  and  people  of  every  de- 
gree, without  exception  of  persons  or  places. 

His  Majesty  violated  the  *  inviolable  and  univer- 
sal peace,''  mocked  and  converted  into  hatred  the 
**true  and  sincere  friendship''  of  these  profes- 

1  Jefferson  to  Hammond,  May  29,  1792.  Am.  State  Payers, 
For.  ReL,  I,  215. 

13 


Chapter  I 

sions,  by  his  outrageous  treatment  of  American 
seamen.  This  reached  its  climax  when  in  1807  a 
United  States  warship,  the  Chesapeake^  was  sum- 
moned by  the  British  ship,  Leopard,  to  submit  to 
search  for  British  deserters.  Taken  by  surprise, 
the  Chesapeake  received  three  full  broadsides 
without  being  able  to  reply ;  and  in  fifteen  minutes 
was  reduced  to  a  helpless  condition.  The  boats 
of  the  Leopard  came  over,  bringing  several  Brit- 
ish officers,  who  mustered  the  ship 's  company  and 
took  from  it  three  sailors. 

^^  Disgraced,  degraded,  with  officers  and  crew 
smarting  under  a  humiliation  that  was  never  for- 
gotten nor  forgiven,  the  unlucky  Chesapeake 
dragged  her  way  back  to  Norfolk. ' '  ^  But  the  war 
of  1812  was  only  a  few  years  off.  The  indignity 
was  then  to  be  effaced,  so  far  as  that  was  possible, 
by  a  succession  of  naval  victories,  which,  together 
with  New  Orleans  and  Saratoga  and  Yorktown, 
were  to  give  to  the  United  States  the  distinction 
of  having  done  more  to  lower  the  military  and 
naval  prestige  of  Great  Britain  than  all  other 
nations  of  the  world  together. 

Article  II  of  the  Jay  Treaty  required  that  Great 
Britain  withdraw  her  garrisons  from  the  "Western 
posts  by  the  1st  of  June,  1796.  On  account  of 
opposition  to  the  treaty  in  Congress,  the  bill  ap- 
propriating the  funds  necessary  to  the  occupation 

1  Hist,  of  the  United  States  by  H.  Adams,  IV,  1920. 

14 


Jay  Treaty  (1795) 

of  the  posts  by  the  United  States  was  not  signed 
by  the  President  until  the  6th  of  May,  and  there 
was  not  time  between  then  and  the  1st  of  June  for 
the  Department  of  War  to  get  officers  with  troops 
and  supplies  to  those  distant  points.  On  the  10th 
of  May,  Captain  Lewis  of  the  United  States  army 
was  sent  to  Quebec  to  make  arrangements  with 
Lord  Dorchester,  commanding  the  British  forces 
in  Canada,  for  the  reception  of  the  posts.  At  the 
end  of  May  orders  were  issued  to  the  British 
commandants  to  evacuate  them;  but  Lewis,  now 
in  Quebec,  represented  that  the  American  troops 
were  not  ready  for  their  reception.  Lord  Dor- 
chester agreed  to  await  their  coming  and  on  the 
1st  and  2nd  of  June  issued  orders  for  the  trans- 
fer to  take  place  on  the  arrival  of  the  American 
troops.^  The  small  posts,  Dutchman's  Point  and 
Oswegatchie,  were  abandoned  without  formal 
transfer  about  the  1st  of  July.  The  larger  posts 
were  delivered  to  American  officers  in  the  follow- 
ing order: 

Miami 11  July,       1796. 

Detroit 11  July,        1796. 

Niagara 11  August,   1796.^ 

Michilimackinac 2  October,  1796.^ 

1  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Hist.  Collection,  XXV,  121;  The  West- 
tcard  Movement  by  Justin  Winsor,  pp.  482,  483. 

2  The  British  Evacuation  of  the  United  States  by  H.  C.  Osgood. 

3  Letter  to  the  author,  Feb.  20,  1914,  from  the  assistant  editor 
of  the  Michigan  Historical  Commission. 

15 


Chapter  I 

If  the  United  States  officers  had  been  ready  to 
receive  the  posts  on  the  1st  of  June,  the  transfer 
could  not  have  been  made  then,  for  the  British 
orders  were  not  issued  in  the  first  instance  until 
the  end  of  May  and  weeks  must  be  allowed  for 
their  transmission.  To  account  for  this  tardiness 
on  the  part  of  the  British  it  is  necessary  to  con- 
sider a  particular  stipulation  of  the  Jay  Treaty 
and  another  treaty.  Article  III  of  the  Jay  Treaty 
gave  to  British  subjects  as  well  as  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  the  right  to  trade  freely  with 
the  Indians  on  either  side  of  the  boundary  line 
between  Canada  and  the  United  States.  A  treaty 
subsequently  concluded  between  the  United  States 
and  certain  tribes  of  Indians  debarred  those  In- 
dians from  trading  with  persons  not  provided 
with  a  license  from  the  Government  of  the  United 
States.! 

Great  Britain  naturally  considered  this  Indian 
Treaty  as  repugnant  to  Article  III  of  the  Jay 
Treaty.  She  believed  that  the  United  States  had 
ratified  the  Indian  Treaty  without  knowing  the 
terms  of  the  previously  ratified  Jay  Treaty,  as  in 
fact  it  had,2  and  that  it  had  no  intention  of  violat- 
ing the  latter  treaty;  at  the  same  time  she  pro- 

1  Treaty  of  Greenville,  concluded  Aug.  3,  communicated  to 
Senate,  Dec.  9,  ratified  Dec.  22,  1795.  The  Jay  Treaty  was  con- 
cluded Nov.  19,  1794,  ratified  by  the  President,  and  its  ratifica- 
tions exchanged,  Oct.  28,  1795. 

2  Uist.  of  the  United  States^  Hildreth,  I,  598,  599. 

16 


Jay  Treaty  (1795) 

posed  the  negotiation  of  an  additional  article 
declaring  that  no  stipulation  entered  into  subse- 
quently to  the  Jay  Treaty  should  he  understood 
as  derogating  in  any  manner  from  the  rights  of 
free  intercourse  and  commerce  secured  by  Article 
m  of  that  treaty.^  This  article  was  concluded 
on  the  4th  of  May,  1796.^  Information  of  the  fact 
could  not  have  reached  Quebec  before  the  latter 
part  of  May,  and,  until  it  did,  orders  for  the  evac- 
uation were  not  to  issue.^  Taking  these  circum- 
stances into  account,  it  appears  that  the  original 
tardiness  of  Great  Britain  in  providing  for  the 
surrender  of  the  posts  was  another  case  of  her 
holding  them  as  security  for  the  observance  of  the 
treaty  by  the  United  States;  another  attempt  to 
enforce  the  treaty  by  violating  it  herself.  The 
remissness  of  the  United  States  in  not  being  pre- 
pared to  receive  the  posts  by  the  1st  of  June  was 
not  contrary  to  any  stipulation.  The  treaty  did 
not  call  for  a  transfer;  it  provided  only  for 
a  withdrawal.  Grateful  acknowledgment  is  due 
therefore  to  the  British  officers  for  favoring  the 
United  States,  as  they  generally  did  by  executing 

1  Bond,  British  Minister,  to  Pickering,  Secretary  of  State,  Mch. 
26,  1796. 

2  Its  ratification  was  advised  by  the  Senate  on  the  9th  of  the 
same  month.  Whether  afterwards  ratified  or  not  does  not  appear 
in  the  official  publication  of  treaties,  etc.,  compiled  by  M.  C. 
Mallory. 

3  Hist,  of  the  United  States,  Hildreth  I,  598;  British  Evacuation 
of  the  United  States,  Osgood. 

17 


Chapter  I 

it  as  a  transfer.  The  only  one  of  the  larger  posts 
that  was  found  to  be  evacuated  when  the  Ameri- 
cans entered  it,  was  Detroit.  The  American  force 
that  occupied  it  was  so  poorly  supplied  that  to 
maintain  itself  till  succored,  it  had  to  borrow  pro- 
visions from  the  British  force  beyond  the  river.^ 
The  forementioned  Indian  Treaty  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  a  violation  of  the  Jay  Treaty  unless 
its  contravention  of  it  was  intentional  and  was 
carried  into  effect.  The  British  Government, 
through  its  minister,  admitted  that  it  was  unin- 
tentional, and  there  being  no  evidence  that  it  was 
carried  into  effect,  it  may  be  safely  asserted  that 
it  was  not.  It  was,  moreover,  formally  repudiated 
by  the  United  States  in  the  manner  proposed  by 
the  British  Government. 

To  dispose  of  the  long  standing  claims  of  debts 
which  should  have  been  settled  under  Article  IV 
of  the  Treaty  of  1783,  Article  VI  of  the  Jay 
Treaty  provided  for  the  arbitration  of  claims  of 
** British  merchants  and  others"  against  ^* citizens 
or  inhabitants  of  the  United  States"  for  bona  fide 
debts  *^ contracted  before  the  peace."  For  the 
losses  and  damages  resulting  from  the  nonpay- 
ment of  such  debts  the  United  States  Government 
was  to  make  full  and  complete  compensation.  To 
determine  the  amount  of  such  losses  and  damages, 

^The  Westward  Movement  by  Justin  Winsor,  p.  483. 

18 


Jay  Treaty  (1795) 

five  commissioners  were  to  be  appointed  as  fol- 
lows: two  by  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  two  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and  one  **by 
the  unanimous  voice  of  the  other  four."  The 
commissioners  were  accordingly  appointed  as 
follows : 

By  the  United  States 
Thomas  Fitzsimmons  of  Pennsylvania 
James  Innes  of  Virginia  ^ 

By  Great  Britain 
Thomas  Macdonald 
Henry  Pye  Rich 

By  the  Commission 
John  Guillemard 

Three  of  the  commissioners  were  to  constitute 
a  quorum  with  *' power  to  do  any  act  appertain- 
ing to  the  said  commission,  provided  that  one  of 
the  commissioners  named  on  each  side  and  the 
fifth  commissioner  shall  be  present.'' 

The  commission  met  on  the  29th  of  May,  1797. 
Its  discussions  developed  the  fact  that  the  fifth 
member  and  one  of  the  British  members  were 
completely  under  the  influence  of  the  other  Brit- 
ish member,  Mr.  Macdonald,  of  a  domineering 
temper  and  uncompromisingly  British  or  anti- 
American.    By  his  control  of  the  majority  he  be- 

iDied;  succeeded  by  Samuel  Sitgreaves. 

19 


Chapter  I 

came  practically  the  commission,  and  established 
for  his  government  a  system  of  rules  which,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
clearly  comprehended  a  vast  mass  of  cases  never 
submitted  to  its  consideration.^  Was  this  a  vio- 
lation of  the  treaty?  Was  the  commission  com- 
petent to  determine  its  own  jurisdiction  under  the 
treaty?  No  other  body  or  person  was  formally 
empowered  to  do  this  and  the  treaty  itself  de- 
clared that  the  award  of  the  commission  should 
*4n  all  cases,  be  final  and  conclusive,  both  as  to 
the  justice  of  the  claim  and  [as]  to  the  amount  of 
the  sum  to  be  paid.''  It  would  seem  therefore, 
that  the  commission  had  at  least  as  much  right  as 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  decide 
what  cases  came  within  its  jurisdiction  and  that 
its  exercise  of  such  right  in  the  manner  stated, 
however  disagreeable  and  even  unfair  to  the 
United  States,  was  not  a  violation  of  the  treaty. 
But  together  with  the  offensive  demeanor  of  Mr. 
Macdonald,  it  proved  too  exasperating  for  the 
United  States  commissioners.  These  consequently 
withdrew  from  the  board,  on  the  31st  of  July, 
1798.  This  action,  if  not  dictated  by  the  United 
States  Government,  was  unqualifiedly  approved 
by  it.  Great  Britain  called  in  vain  upon  the 
United  States  to  replace  the  seceding  members 
by  the  appointment  of  new  ones,  offering  to  re- 

1  John  Marshall,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Grenville,  Aug.  23,  1800. 

20 


Jay  Treaty  (1795) 

place  its  own.^     The  United  States  refused  to  do 
so,  insisting  upon  one  of  two  measures : 

1.  Negotiation  of  an  additional  article,  defin- 
ing, to  the  satisfaction  of  the  United  States,  the 
classes  of  cases  to  be  arbitrated ;  or, 

2.  Agreement  upon  a  lump  sum  as  full  compen- 
sation for  all  the  claims  of  the  creditors.^ 

It  thus  repudiated  its  obligation  to  arbitrate. 
Its  excuse,  at  the  best,  was  that  the  arbitration 
was  proving  unjust.  It  had  no  right  to  expect 
justice.  A  tribunal  of  arbitration  is  not  a  court 
of  justice.  Its  function  is  to  settle  differences  by 
arbitrary  judgment,  which,  even  if  unjust,  is  pref- 
erable to  discord,  contention,  or  war.  The  with- 
drawal of  the  United  States  must  be  adjudged  a 
violation  of  the  treaty.  Great  Britain,  after  some 
demurring,  consented  to  compromise  on  a  lump 
sum,  and  the  two  governments  agreed  upon  £600,- 
000,  or  $2,664,000,  which  was  duly  paid  by  the 
United  States,  under  the  provisions  of  a  separate 
convention  ratified  in  1802. 

iGrenville  to  King,  April  19,  1800,  Am.  State  Papers,  For. 
Rel,  II,  308. 

2  Marshall,  Secretary  of  State,  to  Grenville,  Aug.  23,  1800. 


21 


n 

Second  Treaty  of  Peace  (Treaty  of  Ghent,  1815) 

Convention  for  Indemnity  Under  the  Award  of 

the  Emperor  of  Russia  (1823) 

Rush-Bagot  Agreement  (1818) 

Convention  Respecting  Fisheries   (1819) 


The  Treaty  of  Ghent,  1815 

Article  I  of  this  treaty,  whicli  closed  the  War 
of  1812,  commenced  as  follows : 

There  shall  be  a  firm  and  universal  peace  between  his 
Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States,  and  between 
their  respective  countries,  territories,  cities,  towns,  and 
people  of  every  degree,  without  exception  of  places  or 
persons. 

This  was  followed  before  our  Civil  War  by  of- 
fenses against  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  during 
the  war  by  violations  of  professed  neutrality, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  challenges  to  war,  if  not 
as  acts  of  war,  and  certainly  as  violations  of  the 
foregoing  stipulation. 

22 


Second  Treaty  of  Peace  (Treaty  of  Ghent,  1815) 

The  Treaty  of  Ghent  found  the  British  in 
possession  of  Fort  Mackinac  (Michilimackinac), 
which  they  had  captured  during  the  War  of  1812, 
but,  as  provided  also  in  the  first  article,  the  place 
was  returned  to  the  United  States  in  1815.^  The 
British  garrison  withdrew  to  the  mouth  of  the 
St.  Mary^s  Eiver  and  established  itself  on  Drum- 
mond  Island,  which  was  believed,  at  least  by  the 
British  commander,  to  be  British  territory.  But 
at  this  time  the  boundary  between  Canada  and 
the  United  States  was  still  undefined,  as  left  in  the 
Treaty  of  1783.  The  Treaty  of  Ghent  provided 
for  its  definition  by  a  commission  of  two  members, 
one  to  be  appointed  by  his  Britannic  Majesty  and 
one  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  The 
commission  was  duly  appointed,  and  decided, 
among  other  questions,  that  Drummond  Island 
was  not  British  but  United  States  territory.  This 
took  place  at  Utica,  New  York,  on  the  18th  of 
June,  1822.  The  decision  was  known  to  the  com- 
mander at  Drummond  Island  before  the  end  of 
the  year,  but  the  post  was  not  finally  surrendered 

1 .  .  .  All  territory,  places,  and  possessions  whatsoever,  taken 
by  either  party  from  the  other  during  the  war  or  which  may  be 
taken  after  the  signing  of  this  treaty,  .  .  .  shall  be  restored 
without  delay,  and  without  causing  any  destruction  or  carrying 
away  any  of  the  artillery  or  other  public  property  originally  cap- 
tured in  the  said  forts  or  places  and  which  shall  remain  therein 
upon  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  this  treaty,  or  any  slaves 
or  other  private  property  {Art.  I,  Treaty  of  Ghent). 

23 


Chapter  II 

to  the  United  States  until  the  14th  of  November, 
1828.  The  intervening  delay  of  six  years  and  five 
months  is  a  story  of  leisurely,  formal  procedure 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  to  decide  upon  a  sub- 
stitute for  Drummond  Island  as  a  stronghold  of 
British  influence  among  the  Indians  of  the  North- 
west. By  such  procrastination  she  violated  the 
stipulation  in  Article  I  of  the  treaty,  that  all  ter- 
ritory, places,  and  possessions,  taken  by  either 
party  from  the  other  during  the  war,  or  which 
might  be  taken  after  the  signing  of  the  treaty, 
should  be  ** restored  without  delay.''  ^ 

By  Article  I  of  the  treaty  it  was  stipulated  that 
the  British  troops,  in  withdrawing  from  the 
United  States,  should  not  carry  away  any  slaves 
or  other  private  property  whatever  or  any  artil- 
lery or  other  public  property  originally  captured 
in,  and  remaining  in,  any  fort  or  place  which  the 
treaty  required  to  be  restored  to  the  United  States, 
Slaves  were  thus  recognized  as  private  property. 
The  prohibition  against  carrying  away  private 
property  was  general,  that  against  carrying  away 
public  property  was  limited  to  captures  made  in 
**said  forts  or  places."  The  British  contended 
that  the  prohibition  as  to  private  property  was 
also   limited;   that   slaves   not   captured  in   any 

"^Drummond  Island  by  S.  F.  Cook;  The  United  States  and  Int. 
Arbitr.  by  J.  B.  Moore;  Treaties,  Conventions,  etc.,  by  W.  M. 
Malloy. 

24 


Second  Treaty  of  Peace  (Treaty  of  Ghent ,  1815) 

fort  or  place  which  had  to  be  restored  to  the 
United  States,  or  who  were  not  in  such  fort  or 
place  upon  the  exchange  of  ratifications,  might  be 
carried  away  without  violating  the  treaty,  and 
they  accordingly  carried  away  more  slaves,  it 
would  seem,  than  they  did  in  1783.^ 

By  a  convention  which  was  ratified  in  1819,^  it 
was  agreed  to  refer  this  question  of  interpreta- 
tion ^^to  some  friendly  sovereign  or  state  to  be 
named  for  that  purpose  and  ...  to  consider  the 
decision  of  such  friendly  sovereign  or  state  to  be 
final  and  conclusive  on  all  the  matter  referred.'' 
The  arbiter  selected  was  Emperor  Alexander  of 
Eussia.  He  decided  *Hhat  the  United  States  of 
America  are  entitled  to  a  just  indemnification 
from  Great  Britain  for  all  private  property  car- 
ried away  by  the  British  forces ;  and,  as  the  ques- 
tion regards  slaves  more  especially,  for  all  such 
slaves  as  were  carried  away  by  the  British  forces, 
from  the  places  and  territories  of  which  the  resti- 
tution was  stipulated  by  the  treaty,  in  quitting  the 
said  places  and  territories."  The  British  min- 
ister raised  the  question  whether  it  applied  to 
slaves  who,  coming  from  places  which  had  never 

iThe  United  States  was  refunded  for  them  in  the  sum  of 
$1,204,960  and  the  average  value  of  slaves  was  fixed  by  an  inter- 
national commission  at  $280.  This  would  make  the  number  of 
them  over  4.000.  {Convention  of  1826  icith  Great  Britain;  Am. 
Hist.  Rev.,  July,  1914,  p.  83). 

2  Convention  respecting  Fisheries,  Boundary,  and  the  Restora- 
tion of  Slaves,  Art.  V. 

25 


Chapter  II 

been  occupied  by  British  troops,  voluntarily  joined 
the  British  forces.  It  was  argued  that  these 
slaves,  though  taken  along,  were  not  being  carried 
away  from  places  or  territories  ^'of  which  the 
restitution  was  stipulated  by  the  treaty.^'  The 
answer  was  expressed  as  follows:  *^  .  .  ever 
faithful  to  the  grammatical  interpretation  of  the 
first  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  his  Imperial 
Majesty  declares  a  second  time  that  it  appears  to 
him,  according  to  this  interpretation ;  that  in  quit- 
ting the  places  and  territories  of  which  the  Treaty 
of  Ghent  stipulates  the  restitution  to  the  United 
States,  his  Britannic  Majesty *s  forces  had  no 
right  to  carry  away  from  these  same  places  and 
territories,  any  slave  whatever,  by  whatever 
means  he  may  have  fallen  or  come  into  their 
power.'* 

The  Emperor,  besides  rendering  this  decision, 
offered  to  use  his  good  offices  as  mediator  in  the 
negotiations  which  must  be  undertaken  to  carry 
it  into  effect.  His  offer  was  accepted  and  a  con- 
vention was  concluded  under  his  mediation.^ 

Convention  for  Indemnity  Under  Award  of  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  (1823) 

The  ratifications  of  this  compact  were  exchanged 
on  the  10th  of  January,  1823.    It  provided  for 

1  Moore's  Digest  of  Intern.  Law,  V,  717. 

26 


Convention  for  Indemnity  (1823) 

the  appointment  of  two  commissioners  and  two 
arbitrators;  one  commissioner  and  one  arbitrator 
to  be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  and  one  commissioner  and  one  arbitrator 
to  be  appointed  by  his  Britannic  Majesty.  The 
resulting  appointments  were  the  following: 

Commissioners 

Great  Britain George  Jackson 

United  States Langdon  Cheves 

Arbitrators 

Great  Britain John  McTavish 

United  States Henry  Seawell 

The  commissioners  and  arbitrators,  acting  as  a 
joint  board,  were  to  agree  upon  an  average  value 
to  be  allowed  for  each  slave,  for  which  indemnifi- 
cation might  be  due ;  thereupon  the  commissioners, 
forming  a  board  by  themselves,  or  commission, 
were  to  examine  the  claims  for  such  indemnifica- 
tion. The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States 
was  to  furnish  the  commission  a  definite  list  of  the 
slaves  and  other  private  property  for  which  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  claimed  indemnifi- 
cation; it  being  understood  and  agreed  that  the 
commission  should  not  take  cognizance  of,  nor  re- 
ceive any  claims  for,  private  property  not  con- 
tained in  said  list,  and  that  his  Britannic  Majesty 
should  not  be  required  to  compensate  for  any 

27 


Chapter  II 

claims  not  in  said  list.  His  Britannic  Majesty 
engaged  to  have  produced  before  the  commission, 
as  material  towards  ascertaining  the  facts,  all  the 
evidence  of  which  his  Majesty's  government  might 
be  in  possession,  by  returns  from  his  Majesty's 
ofificers  or  otherwise,  of  the  number  of  slaves  car- 
ried away. 

The  commission  was  **  required  to  go  into  an 
examination  of  all  the  claims  submitted,  through 
the  above  mentioned  list,  by  the  owners  of  slaves 
or  other  property  or  by  their  lawful  attorneys  or 
representatives,  and  to  determine  the  same,  re- 
spectively, according  to  the  merits  of  the  several 
cases."  Article  V  read  in  part  as  follows:  *^In 
the  event  of  the  two  commissioners  not  agreeing 
in  any  particular  case  under  examination,  or  of 
their  disagreement  upon  any  question  which  may 
result  from  the  stipulations  of  this  convention, 
then  and  in  that  case,  they  shall  draw  by  lot  the 
name  of  one  of  the  two  arbitrators,  who  after 
having  given  due  consideration  to  the  matter  con- 
tested, shall  consult  with  the  commissioners;  and 
a  final  decision  shall  be  given,  conformably  to  the 
opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  two  commissioners 
and  of  the  arbitrator  so  drawn  by  lot.  ..." 

The  joint  board  met  and  settled  the  value  of  the 
average  slave  as  $280.^  The  two  commissioners 
proceeded  to  consider  the  several  claims,  but,  in- 

lAm.  Hist.  Rev.,  July,  1914,  p.  837. 

28 


Convention  for  Indemnity  (1823) 

stead  of  agreeing,  they  developed  irreconcilable 
differences  on  the  following  points: 

1.  As  to  whether  certain  cases  which  had  been 
accidentally  omitted  from  the  stipulated  list  might 
be  added  to  it.  These  cases  were  not  after- 
thoughts. They  had  accompanied  the  list,  but 
through  the  inadvertence  or  misunderstanding  of 
the  person  who  prepared  it,  were  not  entered  on  it. 

2.  As  to  the  right  of  the  claimants  to  interest 
on  the  value  of  their  slaves.  Mr.  Cheves  held  that 
reasonable  damages  for  the  withholdment  of  a 
right  were  necessary  to  compensate  the  sufferer 
and  that  such  damages  were  measured  in  the  pres- 
ent case  by  interest  at  the  legal  rate.  Mr.  Jack- 
son contended  that  the  value  of  the  slaves  was  the 
compensation  to  be  made.  This  sum  being  fixed, 
the  only  duty  of  the  commissioners  was  to  ex- 
amine persons  or  receive  depositions,  as  to  the 
number  of  them. 

3.  As  to  the  right  of  the  United  States  claim- 
ants to  examine  documents  introduced  as  evidence 
by  the  British  commissioner.  Mr.  Jackson  re- 
ceived from  his  government  a  mass  of  papers, 
consisting  of  extracts  from  the  log-books  of  the 
vessels  which  had  carried  slaves  away  and  other 
documentary  evidence.  He  refused  to  deliver 
them  to  the  commission,  except  on  condition  that 
claimants  should  be  denied  inspection  of  them  un- 
til the  testimony  in  their  respective  cases  should 

29 


Chapter  II 

be  closed.  Mr.  Cheves  maintained  that  the  claim- 
ants were  clearly  entitled  to  inspect  such  evidence. 

4.  As  to  whether  compensation  was  due  for 
slaves  carried  away  from  Dauphin  Island,  in  Mo- 
bile Bay.  Mr.  Jackson  denied  such  obligation  on 
the  ground  that  this  territory  was  not  lawfully 
a  part  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  its  evac- 
uation, that  it  belonged  to  West  Florida,  which 
was  not  ceded  to  the  United  States  until  1819. 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  differences  that  Mr. 
Jackson,  unlike  his  government  in  its  construction 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  was  for  a  strict,  literal 
interpretation  of  the  Convention  of  1823.  Agree- 
ing thereto,  we  may  say,  with  respect  to  the  points 
of  difference,  that  the  first  two  seem  to  be  de- 
batable, that  the  last  two  are  clearly  against  him, 
and  that  they  are  all  subject  to  arbitration  under 
the  provisions  of  Article  V.  Mr.  Cheves  wished 
to  refer  them  to  arbitration.  Mr.  Jackson  may 
have  consented  to  settle  the  first  two  points  in 
this  way,  but  he  stood  out  against  such  settle- 
ment as  to  the  last  two,  on  the  grounds, 

1.  That  the  question  of  interest  did  not  result 
from  the  stipulations  of  the  convention; 

2.  That  Dauphin  Island  was  not  lawful  territory 
of  the  United  States  before  1819. 

'^By  the  refusal  of  the  British  commissioner  to 
refer  questions  to  the  arbitrators,  the  provisions 
of  the  convention  for  the  settlement  of  differences 

30 


Convention  for  Indemnity  (1823) 

between  tiie  commissioners  were  rendered  wholly 
nugatory."^  The  questions  thus  excluded  from 
arbitration  did  result  from  the  stipulations  of  the 
convention;  their  exclusion  constituted  therefore 
a  violation  of  that  instrument. 

The  title  of  the  United  States  to  Dauphin  Is- 
land was  derived,  not  from  the  treaty^  concluded 
with  Spain  in  1819,  for  the  cession  of  the  Floridas, 
but  from  the  one  concluded  with  France  in  1803, 
for  the  cession  of  Louisiana.^  Great  Britain  ques- 
tioned its  validity  and  refused  to  arbitrate  it. 
The  matter,  however,  was  unimportant,  for  the 
question  turned,  not  upon  title,  but  upon  posses- 
sion. The  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  ap- 
plied to  **all  territory,  places  and  possessions, 
taken  by  either  party  from  the  other  during  the 
war."  That  Dauphin  Island  was  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  United  States  and  taken  from  them  by 
the  British  does  not  admit  of  any  question. 

Secretary  Clay  proposed  that  Great  Britain 
either  compromise  with  the  United  States  on  a 
lump  sum,  covering  all  items  and  all  claims,  or 
instruct  her  commissioners  **to  execute  the  fifth 
article  of  the  Convention  according  to  its  true 
intent  and  meaning. ' '  A  refusal  of  this  proposal 
meant  an  appeal  to  the  Emperor  of  Eussia.  Im- 
pelled probably  by  distaste  for  the  latter  course, 

iMoore*8  Digest  of  Intern.  Lam. 
2  Clay  to  Vaughn,  Oct.  12,  1826, 

31 


Chapter  II 

she  decided  on  a  compromise.  This  was  arranged 
by  another  convention  ratified  in  1826,  which  fixed 
the  sum  allowed  at  $1,204,960.  It  was  carried  into 
effect  by  a  commission,  created  by  act  of  Congress 
in  1827,  twelve  years  after  the  original  agreement, 
within  a  year  of  the  period  in  the  case  of  the 
Western  posts,  **  after  two  treaties  had  been  made, 
and  two  arbitrations  rendered,  to  explain  the 
meaning  of  the  first  treaty,  and  which  fully  ex- 
plained itself. ' '  ^ 

The  commission  completed  its  labors  and  finally 
adjourned  on  the  31st  of  August,  1828. 

Rush-Bagot  'Agreement  (1818) 

With  a  view  of  preventing  a  recurrence  of  such 
fighting  and  destruction  of  property  as  took  place 
on  the  Great  Lakes  between  Canada  and  the 
United  States  during  the  War  of  1812,  the  United 
States  concluded  with  Great  Britain  an  agreement 
known  as  the  Kush-Bagot  Agreement.  It  limited 
the  vessels,  on  each  side,  allowed  on  the  lakes  to 
the  following: 

On  Lake  Ontario — One  vessel  not  exceeding  100 
tons  burden  and  armed  with  one  18-lb.  cannon; 

On  the  Upper  Lakes — Two  vessels  not  exceed- 
ing like  burden  and  armament; 

On  Lake  Champlain — One  vessel  not  exceeding 
like  burden  and  armament. 

1  Benton's  Thirty  Tears'  Yiew,  I,  90. 

32 


Rush-Bagot  Agreement  (1818) 

All  other  armed  vessels  on  these  lakes  were  to 
be  forthwith  dismantled  and  no  other  vessels  were 
to  be  built  or  armed  on  them. 

This  agreement  was  effected  by  an  exchange  of 
notes,  and  was  therefore  not  strictly  a  treaty.  It 
was,  however,  approved  by  the  Senate  on  the  16th, 
and  proclaimed  by  President  Monroe  on  the  28th 
of  April,  1818.  It  was  observed  by  both  parties 
until  1838.  From  1838,  until  about  1843,  it  was 
violated  by  Great  Britain.  At  first,  this  violation 
seemed  to  the  United  States  excusable,  if  not  jus- 
tifiable. Canada  had  an  insurrection  on  her 
hands  with  which  an  element  of  our  population 
on  the  Canadian  border  showed  considerable  sym- 
pathy, going  so  far  as  to  cooperate  with  the  in- 
surgents. But,  as  these  troubles  subsided,  the 
British  preparations  made  to  meet  them  did  not 
seem  to  our  Government  to  be  proportionately 
diminished.  The  United  States  consequently  de- 
cided on  retaliation.  A  sidewheel  bark,  with  a 
registered  tonnage  of  498  tons  and  carrying  six 
pieces  of  cannon  (two  52-pounders  and  four  32- 
pounders)  was  built  in  parts  at  Pittsburgh,  Penn- 
sylvania, taken  across  country  by  mule  teams  and 
canal  boats  to  Erie,  Pennsylvania,  and  put  to- 
gether and  launched  there  on  Lake  Erie  in  1843. 
This  vessel  has  been  on  the  lakes  ever  since.  She 
was  first  named  the  Michigan,  but  on  the  construc- 
tion of  a  modern  battleship  of  that  name,  was  re- 

33 


Chapter  II 

named  the  Wolverine.  On  the  6th  of  May,  1912, 
she  was  placed  out  of  commission  and  assigned  to 
duty  with  the  naval  militia  of  Pennsylvania. 

Since  1865  it  seems  to  have  been  admitted  that 
the  agreement  did  not  preclude  the  maintenance 
of  a  revenue  service.^  In  the  winter  of  1911-12, 
the  United  States  had  on  the  lakes,  besides  reve- 
nue cutters,  six  vessels.  Only  four  were  allowed. 
The  smallest  of  these  numbered  542  and  the  larg- 
est 1130  tons  displacement.  The  largest  tonnage 
allowed  was  100  tons  burden  or,  say  roughly,  140 
tons  displacement.  All  mounted  more  than  one 
gun,  the  number  allowed.  One  of  them,  the  Bu- 
huque,  a  gunboat,  built  in  1904,  mounted  six  4-inch 
guns.  The  largest  caliber  allowed  was  3.2  inches 
(18-pounder).  Most  of  these  vessels  went  into  the 
lakes  by  way  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Eiver  and  the 
Welland  Canal,  with -the  permission  of  the  Cana- 
dian Government  and  without  armament,  the  lat- 
ter being  removed  for  the  voyage  and  replaced 
afterwards.  But  their  presence  on  the  lakes  can- 
not be  reconciled  with  the  terms  of  the  Kush- 
Bagot  Agreement. 

Convention  Respecting  Fisheries  (1819) 

In  1819  Great  Britain  concluded  with  the  United 
States  a  treaty  allowing  the  inhabitants  of  the 
United  States  to  fish  and  dry  and  cure  fish,  on 

1  Moore's  Digest  of  Intern.  Lave,  I,  696. 

34 


Convention  Respecting  Fisheries  (1819) 

certain  parts  of  the  coast  of  Newfoundland  and 
Labrador.  When  this  treaty  had  been  in  satisfac- 
tory operation  about  twenty  years,  it  was  inter- 
preted so  as  not  to  allow  of  our  fishing  inside  of 
the  bays  or  indents  of  the  coast  measured  from 
headland  to  headland.  An  armed  naval  force  was 
sent  to  sustain  this  claim  and  the  United  States 
sent  two  war  steamers  to  protect  the  rights  of 
American  fishermen.  The  nations  were  thus  on 
the  verge  of  war  when  their  difference  was  settled 
by  a  compromise  effected  by  another  treaty 
(1854).  But  the  provisions  of  the  latter  were 
subject  to  termination  after  the  expiration  of  ten 
years,  and  they  expired  accordingly  on  the  17th 
of  March,  1866.  New  arrangements  were  made 
by  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  1871,  and  subse- 
quent agreements,  but  they  gave  rise  to  repeated 
controversy.  The  matter  was  not  settled  to  the 
satisfaction  of  both  countries  until  it  was  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration  at  The  Hague  in  1910. 

Of  the  seven  distinct  questions  into  which  it  was 
resolved,  two  were  decided  in  part  according  to 
the  contentions  of  Great  Britain  and  in  part  ac- 
cording to  those  of  the  United  States ;  the  remain- 
ing five  questions  were  decided  according  to  the 
contentions  of  the  United  States.^  The  case  of 
the  United  States  thus  proved  on  the  whole  a  con- 

1  J.  H.  Latan^,  Am.  Journal  of  Int.  Lmo,  Jan.,  1913,  p.  19. 
The  last  diplomatic  step  necessary  to  the  completion  and  per- 
fection of  this  award  was  taken  in  1912. 

35 


Chapter  II 

siderably  better  one  than  that  of  Great  Britain. 
But  the  award  seems  to  show  violation  of  the 
treaty  by  both  parties. 


36 


ni 

The  Clayton-Bulwee  Treaty  (1850) 

Introduction.     The  Mosquito  Coast 

The  Negotiations 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was  primarily  a 
treaty  of  alliance  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  for  the  protection  of  a  ship  canal 
to  be  constructed  across  Central  America,  as  a  line 
of  rapid  transit  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
oceans.  Each  of  the  contracting  nations  had  an 
interest  in  such  communication,  but  not  the  same 
or  an  equal  one.  Great  Britain  could  reach  her 
East  Indian  dependency,  then  under  the  govern- 
ment of  the  East  Indian  Company,  by  the  route 
around  Cape  Good  Hope  in  less  time  than  she 
could  have  done  so  by  a  canal  through  Central 
America.  She  did  have  possessions  on  the  west- 
ern coast  of  North  America,  in  China,  and  in  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  which  would  have  been  brought 
nearer  to  her  by  such  a  waterway.  But  at  that 
time  and  for  many  years  afterwards,  she  attached 
little  value  to  Canada,  and,  for  the  rest,  she  was 
more  than  willing  to  trust  to  her  command  of  the 

37 


Chapter  III 

seas,  irrespectively  of  any  transisthmian  commu- 
nication, for  the  security  of  her  overseas  posses- 
sions. In  California,  the  United  States  had  not 
an  overseas  but  a  continental  possession,  a  coast 
line,  making  the  country  a  power  on  the  Pacific  as 
it  already  was  on  the  Atlantic.  Its  newly  discov- 
ered gold  fields  were  attracting  to  it  the  adventur- 
ous, enterprising  spirits  of  the  world.  The  dis- 
tance between  New  York  and  San  Francisco  by 
way  of  the  Nicaraguan  Canal  would  have  been  less 
than  half  as  long  as  it  was  by  the  usual  route 
around  Cape  Horn.  The  canal  would  have  been 
very  much  more  useful  to  the  United  States  than 
to  Great  Britain.  Our  ability  to  maintain  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  national  domain  and  secure  the 
legitimate  advantages  of  our  newly  acquired  pos- 
sessions, seemed  to  depend  upon  water  communi- 
cation across  the  isthmus.  That  such  should  have 
been  the  common  belief  of  the  people  of  that  gen- 
eration may  seem  strange  to  us  in  these  days  of 
transcontinental  railroads  and  telegraph  lines,  but 
we  must  remember  that  to  the  people  of  that  pe- 
riod it  was  a  grave  question  whether  a  railroad 
could  be  constructed  across  the  Eocky  Mountains 
and  the  Mississippi  Eiver.  Many  believed  that,  if 
it  were  possible  to  build  it,  a  railroad  could  not  be 
successfully  operated  over  **The  Great  American 
Desert,"  lying  beyond  the  Mississippi  Eiver.* 

1  Travis. 

38 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  (1850) 

On  the  25th  of  October,  1849,  Colonel  G.  W. 
Hughes,  of  the  United  States  Topographical  En- 
gineers, chief  engineer  of  the  Panama  Kailroad, 
said  in  answer  to  a  request  from  John  M.  Clayton, 
Secretary  of  State,  for  his  views  *4n  reference  to 
the  different  projects  which  have  been  presented 
to  the  public  for  a  railroad  from  the  Mississippi  to 
the  Pacific,  exclusively  within  the  territories  of  the 
United  States '^ 

I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  road  can  ever  become  a 
great  commercial  thoroughfare,  and  I  much  doubt  if  it 
would,  when  completed,  for  a  century  to  come,  more  than 
pay  for  its  expense. 

Fourteen  years  after  this  the  Union  Pacific  Kail- 
road  was  begun  and  six  years  later  it  was  com- 
pleted. The  money  invested  in  its  construction 
yielded  a  profit  of  50  per  cent.^  During  the  first 
year  of  its  operation,  its  operating  expenses,  in- 
cluding taxes,  consumed  but  61.34  per  cent,  of  its 
gross  earnings.  The  ratio  of  such  expense  to  its 
earnings  during  the  first  ten  years  of  its  opera- 
tion was  on  an  average  47  per  cent.- 

To  understand  the  different  views  taken  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  and  the  questions  of  in- 
terpretation to  which  it  gave  rise,  it  is  necessary 
to  consider  the  course  of  events  which  led  up  to 

1  The  Union  Pacific  Railway  by  J.  P.  Davis. 

^Eiat.  of  Union  Pac.  Railvcay  by  H.  K.  White,  p.  116. 

39 


Chapter  III 

its  negotiation.  We  may  begin  with  the  conquest 
of  the  Aztecs  by  Fernando  Cortez  between  1519 
and  1522.^  The  domain  of  the  Montezumas  com- 
prised a  large  part,  but  not  all,  of  the  territory 
included  in  the  present  Eepublic  of  Mexico.  It 
did  not  include  Yucatan.  This  and  other  prov- 
inces south  of  Old  Mexico  were  overcome  sepa- 
rately by  lieutenants  of  Cortez.  In  1527  they 
were  united  to  form  the  captain-generalcy  of  Gua- 
temala, comprising  the  five  provinces  of  Yucatan, 
Guatemala,  Honduras,  Nicaragua,  and  Costa  Eica, 
and  the  former  Mexican  provinces  of  Chiapas  and 
Soconusco.  In  1540  this  captain-generalcy  was 
united  with  that  of  Mexico  to  form  the  vice-royalty 
of  New  Spain,  but  it  remained  virtually  independ- 
ent of  the  latter  under  the  direct  control  of  the 
Council  of  the  Indies  at  Seville. 

Throughout  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centu- 
ries the  waters  and  coasts  of  the  Caribbean  Sea 
were  infested  with  pirates  and  freebooters  of 
nearly  every  nationality,  but  predominantly  Brit- 
ish. These  outlaws  usually  made  common  cause 
against  Spain,  then  sovereign  on  those  coasts ;  and 
the  injuries  they  inflicted  on  her  were  a  source  of 

iln  the  preparation  of  this  historical  sketch  of  Central  Amer- 
ica, I  have  drawTi  upon  the  Grande  Encyelopedie ;  Les  Cinq  R6- 
puhliques  latines  de  VAmirique  Centrale,  by  Count  Maurice  de 
P^rigny;  Resena  historica  de  Centra- Amir ica  by  Lorenzo  Mon- 
ttifar,  and  the  admirable  studies:  British  Rule  in  Central  Amer- 
ica and  History  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty^  by  I.  D.  Travis 
and  Anglo-American  Isthmian  Diplomacy  by  Mary  W.  Williams. 

40 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  (1850) 

ill-disguised  satisfaction  to  the  nations  jealous  of 
the  wealth  and  power  she  derived  from  her  ex- 
tensive possessions  in  the  New  World. 

In  harmony  with  the  universal  policy  of  the 
time,  Spain  sought  to  maintain  a  rigid  monopoly 
iof  the  resources  of  her  American  possessions.  In 
opposition  to  this  purpose,  the  buccaneers  estab- 
lished permanent  stations  on  the  mainland  and 
within  the  territory  held  by  Indian  tribes  that 
were  friendly  to  them  and  hostile  to  Spain.  These 
furnished  them  food  and  assisted  them  in  their 
depredations. 

Prior  to  the  conquest  of  Jamaica  by  the  English 
in  1655,  the  buccaneers  operated  on  their  own 
responsibility.  After  that  the  Government  of 
England  not  only  connived  at  their  lawless  ag- 
gressions, but  through  the  governors  of  Jamaica 
became  in  a  measure  responsible  for  them.  Fre- 
quently the  governors  gave  aid  to  the  expeditions 
and  shared  in  their  profits.  As  the  wealth  of 
Spain  diminished  and  her  power  declined,  this 
state  of  affairs  gradually  passed  away.  The 
rights  of  peaceful  commerce  received  more  con- 
sideration. It  was  no  longer  possible  for  gov- 
ernors of  Jamaica  to  openly  abet  piratical  raids. 
It  became  necessary  for  the  buccaneers  to  change 
their  vocation.  Many  of  them  settled  down  to 
wood  cutting.  But  they  were  not  suddenly  trans- 
formed from  pirates  into  peaceful,  law-abiding 

41 


Chapter  III 

settlers.  One  of  the  stages  of  development 
through  which  they  passed  in  their  evolution  from 
the  outlaw,  pure  and  simple,  to  the  more  or  less 
civilized  and  peaceful  frontiersman,  was  that  of 
smuggler.  To  get  around  the  law  by  which  this 
vocation  was  prohibited  and  penalized,  they  re- 
sorted to  various  expedients.  One  of  these  was 
to  take  some  tribe,  within  the  Spanish  territory, 
under  British  protection.  In  the  territory  of  a 
people  thus  allied  to  England,  British  subjects 
could  carry  on  an  extensive  trade  in  the  name  of 
their  chief  or  king.  When  once  this  relation  was 
established  there  was  no  redress  for  Spain  but  by 
force  of  arms. 

The  Mosquito  Coast 

There  is  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Central  Amer- 
ica between  Cape  Honduras  on  the  north  and  a 
point  of  indefinite  location  on  the  south,  a  tract 
of  low,  swampy,  unhealthy  ground,  which  perhaps 
for  three  hundred  years  has  borne  the  name  of 
Mosquitia,  Mosquito,  or  the  Mosquito  Coast  or 
Shore  (Map  1).  The  name  is  derived  from  a  tribe 
of  Indians  called  Moscos  by  the  Spaniards,  Mous- 
tica  by  the  buccaneers,  and  Mosquitos  by  the 
British.! 

The  Mosquitos  were  composed  chiefly  of  Sam- 

1  This  name  has  no  relation  to  the  insect  Mosquito.  It  is 
thought  to  have  originated  in  the  Spanish  word  mosca,  fly. 

42 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

bos  (Negroes  crossed  with  Indians)  and  the  off- 
spring of  whites  by  Indian,  Negro,  or  Sambo 
women.  They  may  under  primitive  conditions 
have  numbered  about  5000.  They  occupied  but  a 
small  portion  of  the  Mosquito  Shore,  extending 
little  if  at  all  below  the  Eiver  Mico.  In  1687  their 
head  man  submitted  himself  to  the  governor  of 
Jamaica  and  in  1720  signed  a  convention  or  treaty 
with  that  official.  In  1740  British  forces,  in  vio- 
lation of  the  sovereignty  of  Spain,  occupied  the 
Mosquito  Coast,  for  his  protection.  In  the  mean- 
time he  had  been  commissioned  king  by  the  gov- 
ernor of  Jamaica.  British  officers  were  sent  to 
Bluefields,^  the  capital  of  the  Mosquito  Coast,  to 
look  after  the  interests  of  the  British  and  give 
counsel  to  the  Indian  Government ;  in  other  words, 
to  rule  in  the  name  of  the  so-called  king  for  the 
benefit  of  Great  Britain. 

Spain  remonstrated  against  these  usurpations, 
but  to  little  purpose.  Great  Britain  promised  to 
remedy  them,  but  under  one  pretext  or  another 
managed  not  to  do  so.  More  frequently  she  de- 
nied the  right  of  Spain  to  any  dominion  on  the 
coast,  on  the  ground  that  the  Mosquitos  consti- 
tuted an  independent  nation  which  had  never  been 
subject  to  the  crown  of  Spain.  Spain  always  in- 
sisted that  the  Mosquito  Coast  was  a  part  of  her 
lawful   possessions   in   Central   America.    Thus 

1  Spelt  also  Blewfields. 

43 


Chapter  III 

the  dispute  continued  until  it  constituted  one  of 
the  causes  of  the  war  between  England  and  Spain 
about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  ( Seven 
Years ^  War).  By  the  treaty  of  peace,  concluded 
in  1763,  it  was  stipulated  that  Great  Britain  should 
abandon  the  Mosquito  Coast,  withdrawing  her 
settlers  from  it.  But  she  did  not  withdraw  them. 
Her  violation  of  this  treaty  was  a  factor  in  de- 
termining Spain  to  take  up  arms  against  her  dur- 
ing the  American  War  of  Independence.  By  the 
Treaty  of  1783  it  was  stipulated  that  within  eight- 
een months  from  its  ratification,  the  British  set- 
tlers should  retire  to  the  territory  assigned  to 
the  settlement  of  Belize  (British  Honduras),  with- 
drawing from  the  Spanish  continent  and  islands.^ 
But  the  eighteen  months  passed  away  and  neither 
stipulation  was  carried  out. 

On  the  5th  of  January,  1785,  the  king  of  Spain 
issued  the  following  declaration : 

The  Mosquito  Indians  situated  in  one  of  the  provinces 
of  Guatemala  have  been  vassals  of  the  crown  of  Spain 
since  the  conquest  and  subjection  of  those  dominions, 
and  although  at  times  they  rebelled  with  the  aid  and  in- 
stigation of  various  English  adventurers  who  were  sur- 
reptitiously  establishing   themselves    therein,  .  .  .  they 

1 .  .  .  tous  les  Anglais  qui  pourraient  se  trouver  disperses  par- 
tout  ailleurs,  soit  sur  le  continent  espagnol,  soit  sur  les  ilea 
quelconques,  d^pendantes  du  susdit  continent  espaanol,  et  par 
telle  raison  quo  ce  fut,  sans  exception,  se  reuniront  dans  le  can- 
ton qui  vient  d'  etre  circonscrit  [Belize]  dans  le  terme  de  dix- 
huit  mots,  d  compter  de  V6change  des  ratifications. 

44 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

have  repeatedly  petitioned  to  return  to  the  dominion  of 
Spain  and  it  was  finally  conceded  to  them  that  they  be 
graciously  admitted  to  the  reconciliation  which  they  de- 
sired.^ 

But  Great  Britain  would  not  admit  that  the  Mos- 
quito Coast  was  included  in  the  definition  ' '  Span- 
ish Continent.'^  2  The  consequence  was  a  treaty 
concluded  in  1786,  which  provided  that  all  British 
subjects  and  other  settlers  who  had  enjoyed  the 
protection  of  Great  Britain  should  *^  evacuate  the 
country  of  the  Mosquitos'^  and  the  **  Continent  in 
general/'  beyond  the  boundary  agreed  upon  for 
British  Honduras,  within  a  period  of  six  months.^ 
About  the  middle  of  1787  this  evacuation  was 
nearly  accomplished,  but  it  was  never  completed. 
With  the  assistance  of  the  few  Englishmen  who 
remained,  the  British  Government  easily  con- 
trived to  preserve  and  even  strengthen  its  hold 
on  the  country.  A  Mosquito  flag  was  formed 
with  the  British  Union  Jack  in  the  upper  canton, 
the  remainder  consisting  of  alternate  blue  and 
white  horizontal  stripes,  with  a  crown  in  the  lower 
canton. 

One  of  the  foremost  authorities  on  Central 
America  says: 

The  name  (Mosquito  Shore)  was  always  purely  geo- 

1  Montufar,  opus  cit.,  IV,  99, 

2  Hist,  of  Cent.  Am.,  II,  606.     Bancroft. 

3  These  treaties,  1763,  1783,  1786  or  extracts  thereof,  are  pub- 
lished in  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  19^,  47  Cong.,  1  seas.   (1882). 

45 


Chapter  III 

graphical  and  never  conveyed  or  was  intended  to  convey 
any  idea  of  political  separation  from  the  rest  of  Central 
America.  From  the  frequent  mention  of  late  years,  of  a 
personage  styled  the  King  of  the  ]\Iosquitos,  some  portion 
of  the  public  may  have  fallen  into  the  error  of  supposing 
that  what  are  called  the  Mosquito  Indians  do  really  rec- 
ognize and  obey  some  such  potentate.  Nothing  could  be 
farther  from  the  truth.  No  form  of  government  ever  ex- 
isted among  these  people,  except  such  as  was  vested  in 
their  local  head  men,  or  chiefs,  who  have  often  been  at 
variance  and  in  open  hostility  among  themselves.  Some 
of  these  have  assumed  the  title  of  governor,  others  of 
general,  admiral,  etc.  .  .  .  without  hovrever,  having  the 
slightest  comprehension  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms. 
When  the  English  superintendent  of  Belize  found  it  con- 
venient to  manufacture  a  King  on  the  Mosquito  Shore,  a 
number  of  these  head  men  w^ere  got  together  and  by  lib- 
eral appliance  of  rum,  induced  to  fix  their  marks  to  a 
paper,  which  was  afterward  produced  as  an  ''act  of  al- 
legiance'^ to  a  Sambo  selected  for  the  purpose  by  the 
English  agents.  But  the  chiefs  neither  understood  what 
they  did  nor  regarded  it  afterwards.  The  fiction,  how- 
ever, answered  its  purpose.^ 

The  following  text  may  be  taken  as  typical  of 
such  acts  of  allegiance: 

Sire : 

Whereas  by  an  appointed  meeting  of  the  most  princi- 
pal inhabitants  commanding  the  different  townships  of 
Southeastern  Mosquito  Shore,  from  the  confines  of  Wanks 
River  to  Buckatora  Lagoon  inclusive,  commanded  by 
Prince  Stephen,  King  regent  of  the  above  shore,  held  at 
Woolang  on  the  14th  of  November  and  year  of  our  Lord 

%  J^otea  on  Central  America,  etc.,  by  E.  Q.  Squier,  pp.  361,  365. 

46 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

1815,  in  behalf  of  giving  our  assent,  consent,  choice  and 
declaration  to,  for  and  of,  the  said  hereditary  prince 
Frederic,  to  be  our  lawful  King  and  Sovereign,  and  we 
whose  names  are  hereunto  subscribed  do  give  our  assent, 
consent,  choice  and  declaration  to,  for  and  of,  the  said 
hereditary  Prince  Frederic,  to  be  our  lawful  King  and 
sovereign. 

The  Mosquito  kings  were  crowned  at  Belize  or 
Jamaica.  British  officials  annually  visited  the 
Mosquito  Coast  and  distributed  presents  among 
the  Indian  inhabitants. 

By  a  treaty  of  1814  with  Spain,  Great  Britain 
was  expressly  excluded  from  the  country  of  the 
MosquitoSj  the  continent  in  general,  and  the  islands 
adjacent  without  exception.  This  treaty  was  in 
force  when  Mexico  and  Guatemala  declared  their 
independence  from  Spain,  Mexico  on  the  24th  of 
February  and  Guatemala  on  the  14th  of  Septem- 
ber, 1821.  Guatemala  consisted  at  this  time  of 
the  five  provinces  of  Guatemala,  Honduras,  Sal- 
vador, Nicaragua,  and  Costa  Rica,  and  the  former 
Mexican  provinces  of  Chiapas  and  Soconusco. 
She  soon  lost  the  province  of  Salvador,  and,  thus 
reduced,  united  herself  with  Mexico.  On  the  1st 
of  July,  1823,  she  separated  from  Mexico,  in  which 
act  she  was  joined  by  Salvador.  On  the  17th  of 
December,  1823,  she  became  a  republic.^  On  the 
22nd  of  November,  1824,  her  national  assembly 

1  Resena,  historica  de  Centra- America  by  Lorenzo  Monttifar, 
Vol.  I.,  Dedication. 

47 


Chapter  III 

completed  the  task  of  framing  a  constitution,  but 
in  the  meantime,  the  province  of  Chiapas  had  re- 
united itself  to  Mexico.^  The  new  republic  took 
the  name  of  La  Federacion  de  Centro- America, 
which  literally  translated  would  be  The  Federa- 
tion of  Center  America,  Our  Government  dealt 
with  it  originally  as  the  *' Federation  of  the  Cen- 
tre of  America.''^  j^  i^^^j,  applied  other  desig- 
nations to  it  until  its  dissolution,  which  may  be 
considered  as  taking  place  on  the  1st  of  February, 
1839.S 

The  province,  afterwards  state,  of  Los  Altos, 
was  formed  in  1838  by  secession  from  Guatemala, 
but  was  reunited  with  the  latter  on  the  8th  of 
May,  1849.  Except  for  the  brief  period  covered 
by  the  separate  existence  of  Los  Altos,  during 
which  there  w^ere  six  component  provinces,  the 
federation  consisted  of  the  five  provinces  of  Guate- 
mala, Honduras,  Salvador,  Nicaragua,  and  Costa 
Eica. 

During  the  existence  of  the  federation,  the  term 
Guatemala  should  have  been  applied  only  to  the 
province  of  that  name,  and  after  its  dissolution 
only  to  the  independent  State  which  that  province 
became.     But  the  federation  itself  was  not  un- 

1  Fullarton's  Gazetteer  of  the  World.  Article  "Central  Amer- 
ica." Soconusco  was  taken  possession  of  by  Mexico  in  1843, 
under  protest  from  Guatemala    (Baily). 

2  Treaty  signed  Dec.  5,  1825. 

3  Efem^ridea,  etc.,  by  Alejandro  Marure,  p.  48. 

48 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

commonly  designated  on  maps  as  Guatemala  or 
Guatimala,  and  after  its  dissolution  that  designa- 
tion was  occasionally  applied  to  the  territory 
which  it  had  occupied. 

Other  names  applied  to  the  federation  or  to 
the  territory  pertaining  or  which  had  pertained, 
to  it  were :  Central  Provinces  of  America  (Lon- 
don, 1825) ;  Republic  of  the  Centre  (Clay  to  Wil- 
liams, Feb.  10, 1826) ;  Republic  of  Central  America 
(Clay  to  House,  Mch.  14,  1826) ;  Federal  Repub- 
lic of  Central  America  (Canal  Contract,  June  14, 
1826) ;  Central  Government  of  America  (De  Witt 
Clinton  to  Gr.  Van  Rensselaer  and  others,  Oct.  6, 
1826) ;  United  Provinces  of  Central  America 
(New  York,  1828);  United  States  of  Central 
America  (Guatemala,  1834) ;  ^  Central  States  of 
America  (London,  1836,  1838) ;  Confederacy  of 
Central  America  (Clayton  to  Lawrence,  Oct.  20th, 
1849). 

The  term  ** Central  America''  by  itself  was 
rarely  used  to  designate  the  political  unit,  the 
federation  of  Centre  America.  It  was  taken  or- 
dinarily in  a  geographical  sense  and  applied  to  a 
section  of  America  extending,  as  commonly  un- 
derstood, from  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuantepec  on  the 
north  to  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  or  of  Darien  on 
the  south.  Other  geographical  names  for  this  re- 
gion were  the  Aynerican  Isthmus,  the  Isthmus  of 
America,  the  Great  American  Isthmus,  the  Great 

1  By  Frederick  Chatfield,  British  Consul-General. 

49 


Chapter  III 

Central  American  Isthmus,  Central  America 
was  commonly  included  in  North  America  and 
yet  referred  to  as  ^Hhe  isthmus  which  connects 
North  and  South  America."^  The  Isthmus  of 
Panama  was  also,  but  exceptionally,  represented 
as  connecting  North  and  South  America.^ 

The  Spanish  for  Central  America  is  not  Cen- 
tro-America,  but  America  Central,  which  was  more 
or  less  used  in  distinction  from  Centro- America, 
as  Central  America  was  or  should  have  been  used, 
in  distinction  from  Centre  America.^ 

By  1830  Great  Britain's  nominal  protectorate 
over  the  Mosquitos  had  developed  into  a  practical 
control  of  their  affairs. 

From  about  this  time — out  of  respect,  it  would 
seem,  for  the  Central  American  republic — her  in- 
terference in  the  affairs  of  the  Mosquitos  became 
less  active.  But  with  the  dissolution  of  the  fed- 
eral republic  came  a  series  of  encroachments,  more 

iSen.  Resol,  Mcli.  3,  1835;  Hughes  to  Clayton,  Oct.  25,  1849; 
Tavlor's  Mess,  to  Cong.,  Dec.  4,  1849;  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty, 
Art.  VIII. 

2  Chambers's  Information  for  the  People,  Edinburgh,  1842,  p. 
337. 

3  This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  .  quotation  from  a 
work  published  in  1851:  El  pais  que  lleva  actualmente  el  nomhre 
de  Repuhlica  de  Costa  Rica,  es  aquella  porcion  de  la  America 
Central  qiie  se  extiende  entre  Nicaragua  y  Panama;  hanandola 
de  un  lado  el  Oceano  Pacifico  y  del  orto  el  Oceana  Atldntico. 
Provincia  en  vn  tiempo  del  Reino  de  Guatemala,  y  luego  Estado 
de  la  Federacion  de  Centro- America,  se  hizo  enteramente  inde- 
pendiente  desde  que  se  extinguid  el  Gohiemo  General  de  aquella 
Federacion  por  los  afws  18S8  d  181fO.  .  .  .  [Bosquejo  de  la 
Repuhlica  de  Costa  Rica  by  Felipe  Molino,  p.  9.) 

50 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

arrogant  and  offensive  than  those  of  any  former 
period.  On  the  12th  of  August,  1841,  the  super- 
intendent of  the  British  settlement  at  Belize  landed 
at  San  Juan  del  Norte  accompanied  by  the  King 
of  the  Mosquitos,  dragged  from  his  office  the 
Nicaraguan  commandant  of  the  port.  Colonel 
Quijano,  carried  him  otf,  and  abandoned  him  on 
an  uninhabited  coast.  The  object  of  this  outrage 
was  to  assert  the  majesty  of  the  Indian  King  as 
sovereign  over  the  Mosquito  Coast,  including  the 
mouths  of  the  San  Juan.^ 

Mr.  Chatfield,  the  British  consul-general  in  Cen- 
tral America,  wrote  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  Nicaragua  (October  24,  1843) : 

About  the  year  1687,  the  Duke  of  Albemarle  being 
governor  of  Jamaica,  the  Mosquito  Indians  made  formal 
cession  of  their  territory  to  the  King  of  England.^ 

In  this  pretention  Mr.  Chatfield  was  not  sup- 
ported by  his  Government.  Great  Britain  did  not 
claim  the  Mosquito  Territory  as  belonging  to  her. 
She  held  that  it  belonged  to  the  Mosquitos  as  an 
independent  people  and  even  this  point  she  did 
not  press  unless  it  was  contested. 

In  the  same  letter,  Chatfield  alleged  that  the 
place  from  which  Colonel  Quijano  had  been  re- 
moved was  not  Nicaraguan,  but  Mosquito  Terri- 
tory; that  he,  Chatfield,  had  represented  to  the 

1  Monttifar,  opus  cit.,  IV,  93. 

2  Translated  from  the  Spanish.     Montufar,  opus  cit.,  IV,  102. 

51 


Chapter  III 

governor-general  of  Central  America  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Mosquito  nation  and  the  circumstance 
that  Great  Britain  would  not  view  with  indiffer- 
ence the  usurpation  of  the  territory  of  a  monarch 
with  which  she  was  in  close  relation,  and  that 
Spain  herself  had  recognized  the  Mosquito  nation 
on  the  occasion  of  a  visit  made  by  Prince  Esteban 
to  San  Salvador  and  Guatemala.^ 

The  Nicaraguan  minister  contested  that  Mos- 
quito was  not  a  State,  that  to  be  a  State  it  would 
have  to  be  sovereign,  and  that  the  Mosquitos  had 
not  that  quality .2  .  .  . 

He  quoted  the  following  paragraphs  from  the 
Constitution  of  Nicaragua : 

Article  5,  Constitution  of  1824. 

The  territory  of  the  Repubhc  [of  Center  America]  is 
the  same  as  that  formerly  constituting  the  old  kingdom 
of  Guatemala,  exceptiog  for  the  present,  the  province  of 
Chiapas. 

Article  2,  Constitution  of  1838. 

The  territory  of  the  State  [of  Nicaragua]  is  the  same 
as  that  which  formerly  constituted  the  Province  of  Nic- 
aragua. Its  limits  are:  on  the  East  and  Northeast,  the 
Sea  of  the  Antilles  [Caribbean  Sea]  ;  on  the  North  and 
Northwest,  the  State  of  Honduras;  on  the  East  and 
South,  the  Pacific  Ocean ;  and  on  the  Southeast,  the  State 
of  Costa  Eiea.  The  lines  of  demarcation  between  the 
adjoining  states  shall  be  defined  by  a  law  which  shall 
form  part  of  the  constitution. 

iChatfield  to  Orosco,  Oct.  24,  1842. 
2Montfifar,  opiia  cit.,  IV,  99. 

52 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

*'It  is  thus  proved/*  said  the  minister,  **that 
neither  Spain,  nor  Central  America,  nor  Nicara- 
gua has  ever  recognized  a  Mosquito  State  or  ter- 
ritory, with  the  people  and  States  of  which  they 
cultivated  harmony  with  a  view  to  civilizing 
them,  for  which  reason  the  courtesies  paid  the 
Spanish  authorities  to  the  Mosquito  whom  you 
call  Prince,  cannot  be  construed  as  a  recognition 
of  him.  .  .  . '  * 

The  relation  established  between  the  Mosquito 
Indians  and  the  British  Government  *^  could  not 
have  secured  to  England  more  than  the  paltry 
trade  she  might  have  carried  on  with  a  horde  of 
savages  whose  purchases  consisted  at  the  most  of 
a  few  rustic  implements,  and  could  by  no  means 
have  given  her  the  preeminent  rights  of  a  close  alli- 
ance. ' '  ^ 

In  1843  a  British  diplomatic  and  consular  agent 
was  accredited  to  Mosquito.^  This  functionary, 
as  adviser  of  the  alleged  sovereign,  was  the  power 
behind  the  throne.  The  reestablishment  of  British 
dominion  over  the  Mosquito  Coast  may  be  consid- 
ered as  dating  from  his  appointment. 

In  1845,  Lord  Aberdeen,  on  behalf  of  Sir  Robert 

1  Orosco  to  Chatfield.     Montflfar,  op.  cit.,  IV,  100-106. 

2  When  Great  Britain  determined  to  resume  her  dominion  over 
the  Mosquito  Shore,  in  the  name  of  a  protectorate,  is  not  known 
with  any  degree  of  certainty  in  the  United  States.  The  first 
information  on  the  subject  in  the  Department  of  State  at  Wash- 
ington was  contained  in  a  despatch  of  the  20th  January,  1842 
(Buchanan  to   Clarendon,  Jan.   6,   1854). 

53 


Chapter  III 

PeePs  Government,  set  up  a  claim  to  San  Juan 
as  belonging  to  the  Mosquitos.^  It  was  probably 
in  answer  thereto  that  Nicaragua  took  forcible 
possession  of  the  place  in  1846.  She  declined  to 
participate  with  Great  Britain  in  the  determina- 
tion of  the  territory  pertaining  to  the  Mosquitos. 
As  a  consequence  Lord  Palmerston,  in  1847,  sent 
an  instruction  to  all  the  diplomatic  and  other 
agents  of  the  Crown  in  Central  America  and  the 
adjacent  countries,  requiring  them  to  report  **what 
authentic  information  they  could  obtain  as  to  the 
boundaries  claimed  by  the  King  of  Mosquito''  and 
also  what  in  their  opinion  was  ''the  line  of  bound- 
ary which  her  Majesty's  Government  should  insist 
upon  as  essential  for  the  security  and  well-being 
of  the  Mosquito  State."  The  two  resulting 
boundaries,  one  claimed  by  the  King  of  the  Mos- 
quitos and  one  asserted  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment, are  shown  on  the  Map  of  Central  America 
by  James  Wyld,  which  is  reproduced  in  Senate 
Executive  Documents,  No.  75,  First  Session,  Fifty- 
first  Congress.  Among  the  few  other  authentic 
maps  showing  either  of  these  boundaries  are 
Baily's  and  one  published  by  the  United  States 
Coast  Survey,  in  March,  1856.  The  Mosquito 
Shore,  with  a  western  boundary  line,  appears  in 
a  map  by  Desmadryle  Juc,  published  in  Paris  in 
1830. 

^  Quart.  Rev.,  XCIX.    Article  by  H.  L.  Bulwer. 

54 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

There  are  several  maps  of  the  Mosquito  country 
(about  1758)  in  the  Spanish  Archives  at  Madrid; 
on  one  of  these  (No.  49  in  the  Catalogue)  the  in- 
land boundary  is  traced  in  a  yellow  line.^ 

Great  Britain  informed  Nicaragua  and  the  other 
States  bordering  on  the  *^ Kingdom  of  Mosquito*' 
that  she  considered  the  King  of  Mosquito  to  be 
entitled  to  the  extent  of  coast  reaching  from  Cape 
Honduras  to  the  River  San  Juan.^ 

Up  to  that  period,  however,  and  among  geographers 
generally,  the  Mosquito  Shore  was  understood  only  as 
comprehending  the  coast  lying  between  Cape  Graeias 
a  Dios  and  Bluefields  Lagoon,  including  the  latter ;  that 
is  to  say,  between  the  12th  and  15th  degrees  of  north 
latitude,  a  distance  of  about  200  miles.  The  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  apply  the  name  to  a  greater 
extent  of  shore  have  had  their  origin  in  strictly  political 
considerations.^ 

In  October,  1847,  the  Nicaraguan  Government 
replied  to  the  British  communication  that  it  did 
not  recognize  any  king  of  Mosquito,  or  any  such 
territorial  pretensions ;  and  formally  laid  claim  to 
the  northern  coast  and  the  port  of  San  Juan  as 
a  part  of  its  own  dominion,  declaring  that  it  would 
regard  as  war  on  the  part  of  the  British  any  oc- 

1  Relacion  descriptiva,  de  los  Mapas,  Pianos,  etc.,  de  la  Audi- 
encia  y  Capitania  general  de  Guatemala  (Guatemala,  San  Sal- 
vador, Honduras,  Nicaragua,  y  Costa  Rica)  existentes  en  el 
Archivo  general  de  Indias  by  P.  T.  Lanzas,  Chief  of  Archives. 

2  Appendix  A. 

3  The  States  of  Central  America  by  E.  G.  Squier,  pp.  629,  630. 

55 


Chapter  III 

cupation  of  the  port  of  San  Juan  effected  by  the 
Mosquitos  under  British  protection.  The  council 
of  state  of  Mosquito  responded  to  this  defiance 
by  a  resolution  to  establish  the  rights  of  sover- 
eignty of  the  King  of  Mosquito  over  all  the  mouths 
of  San  Juan  and  over  the  navigation  of  the  lower 
part  of  that  river,  on  the  appearance  of  the  first 
British  ship  of  war  having  orders  to  cooperate 
with  the  Mosquito  Government.  On  the  8th  of  De- 
cember, 1847,  the  name  San  Juan  was  anglicized 
as  Greytown  after  Sir  Charles  Grey,  Governor 
of  Jamaica,  by  direction  of  the  King  in  Council.^ 
Soon  after  this  her  Majesty's  ships  Alarm  and 
Vixen  arrived  off  Bluefields,  and  on  the  1st  of 
January,  1848,  a  British  force  proceeded  to  oc- 
cupy San  Juan.2  It  met  with  no  resistance,  but 
its  action  gave  rise,  two  days  later,  to  the  follow- 
ing protest : 

The  supreme  government  of  the  sovereign  State  of 
Nicaragua  has  done  me  the  honor  to  entrust  me  with  a 
commission  to  enter  upon  friendly  communication  with 
the  British  Agent  who  may  present  himself  at  this  port, 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  violent  occupation  of  it 
by  the  troops  under  his  command,  under  the  pretended 
right  which  is  sought  to  be  alleged  in  favor  of  a  chief 
of  the  tribes  of  Mosquitos,  who  under  the  title  of  King, 
without  being  recognized,  is  supported  by  the  English 
force  to  which  at  present  there  is  no  equal  force  in  this 
port  to  offer  opposition,  ...  I  protest  against  the  viola- 

1  The  Gate  of  the  Pacific  by  Bedford  Pim,  p.  61. 

2  Fullarton's  Gazetteer,  Article  "Mosquito  Territory." 

56 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

tion  and  outrage  inflicted  on  the  rights  of  the  state,  and 
I  make  its  authors  responsible  in  the  face  of  the  civilized 
world,  for  the  effusion  of  blood  which  such  an  act  must 
cause,  as  well  as  for  the  loss,  damage,  and  injury  which 
public  and  mercantile  interests,  national  and  foreign, 
may  suffer,  the  loss  of  vessels,  cattle,  and  other  agricul- 
tural produce,  goods,  etc. 

To  this  communication  the  British  agent  and 
consul-general  sent  the  following  reply: 

Vixen,  St.  John's, 

Jan.  3,  1848. 
Sir: 

As  your  government  had  invested  you  with  no  power 
to  recognize  the  authority  of  the  King  of  Mosquito  at  the 
mouth  of  the  St.  John's  or  to  enter  into  any  amicable 
arrangements  for  a  mutual  and  beneficial  intercourse  be- 
tween the  port  and  the  interior,  and  more  particularly  as 
you  refused  to  admit  the  right  of  the  King  to  be  recog- 
nized as  an  independent  Prince,  you  removed  all  basis 
for  negotiations. 

Assuming  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  the  King's 
right  could  be  disputed  and  that  the  Spanish  Sovereigns 
had  a  right  of  dominion,  from  absolute  possession,  over 
the  territory  in  question,  it  would  appear  that  that  right 
devolved  upon  New  Granada  ^  rather  than  upon  Central 
America,  for  under  the  colonial  regime,  the  jurisdiction 
over  this  territory  .  .  .  was  finally  restored  to  New 
Granada  by  Royal  letters  patent  dated  30th  November, 
1803.2 

1  Present  Colombia. 

2  Order  of  the  King  of  Spain,  Nov.  30,  1803.    "The  King  has 

57 


Chapter  III 

Therefore  if  the  right  of  the  Spanish  sovereigns  was 
valid,  so  also  is  that  of  New  Granada ;  and  consequently 
the  pretension  of  Central  America  is  arbitrary  and 
null. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  Mosquito  Coast  was  not 
** restored'^  to  New  Granada,  but  was  for  the  first 
time  vested  in  that  vice-royalty,  by  the  royal  order 
of  1803;  and  the  object  of  this  transfer  was  better 
to  secure  the  country  against  the  very  thing  which 
Great  Britain  was  trying  to  fasten  upon  it,  British 
dominion.  Whether  the  Mosquito  Coast  belonged 
to  New  Granada  or  to  Nicaragua,  it  did  not  be- 
long either  to  Great  Britain  or  to  the  Mosquitos. 
Its  later  history  and  present  status  would  seem 
to  justify  the  claims  of  ownership  made  by  Nicara- 
gua. 

On  the  8th  of  January,  1848,  the  Nicaraguan 
forces  retook  the  port  of  San  Juan.  They  might 
then  have  been  left  in  possession  of  it,  but  for 
the  apprehension  of  another  danger.  On  the  day 
that  it  became  known  at  Vera  Cruz  that  a  treaty 
of  peace  had  been  signed  by  which  California  and 
New  Mexico  were  transferred  to  the  United 
States,^  a  British  fleet  set  sail  from  Vera  Cruz,  and 

resolved  that  the  Islands  of  Saint  Andre  and  the  part  of  the 
Mosquito  Shore  comprised  between  Cape  Gracias  S  Dios  and  the 
Chagres  River  [boundary  between  Guatemala  and  Santa  F6,  or 
New  Mexico]  shall  be  separated  from  the  government  of  Guate- 
mala and  incorporated  in  the  vice-royalty  of  Santa  F^." 

1  Treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo,  concruded  Feb.  2,  1848;  rati- 
fication exchanged  May  30,  1848. 

58 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

proceeded  to  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan  Eiver. 
On  the  12th  of  January  it  took  possession  of  the 
town  and  established  British  authority  over  it  in 
the  name  of  the  Mosquito  Indians.  A  force 
marched  inland  to  the  Lake  of  Nicaragua,  where, 
on  the  7th  of  March,  a  treaty  was  concluded  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Nicaragua.  The  first 
article  provided  for  the  return  of  the  prisoners 
taken  by  the  Nicaraguan  forces  on  the  8th  of 
January.    Article  III  was  worded  as  follows : 

The  Mosquito  flag  and  other  effects  taken  in  the  same 
port  on  the  same  day  shall  be  returned  immediately ;  and 
as  the  officer  commanding  His  Majesty's  forces  desires 
to  obtain  from  the  government  of  Nicaragua  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  outrage  which  the  said  com- 
mander thinks  to  have  been  perpetrated  upon  the  British 
flag  by  the  lowering  of  the  Mosquito  flag  which  is  under 
its  protection,  the  government  of  Nicaragua  declares, 
*'that  it  did  not  know  that  the  Mosquito  flag  stood  in 
such  relation  to  that  of  England  that  an  outrage  upon 
the  former  involved  an  outrage  upon  the  English  flag; 
and  that  far  from  intending  to  insult  the  latter  power, 
it  earnestly  desires  to  cultivate  the  most  amicable  rela- 
tions with  that  government." 

In  Articles  III  and  IV,  Nicaragua  promised  not 
to  disturb  the  peaceful  inhabitants  of  San  Juan 
and  that  no  custom  house  should  be  established 
in  the  neighborhood  of  that  port.  But  the  treaty 
did  not  cede  to  Great  Britain  any  Nicaraguan 
territory  or  acknowledge  her  title  or  that  of  the 
Mosquito  King  to  any  part  of  it. 

59 


Chapter  III 

In  the  meantime  the  United  States  had  taken 
action  in  anticipation  of  British  encroachment  for 
increasing  its  political  influence  in  Central  Amer- 
ica. 

In  1846  it  signed  with  New  Granada  a  treaty 
looking  to  the  construction  of  a  canal  across  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama,  which  was  ratified  in  1848. 
This  was  the  first  diplomatic  transaction  by  which 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  acquired 
treaty  rights  and  assumed  treaty  obligations  in 
reference  to  an  isthmian  canal.  It  contained 
among  others  the  following  provisions : 

Article  XXXV.  .  .  .  The  government  of  New  Gra- 
nada guarantees  to  the  government  of  the  United  States 
that  the  right  of  way  of  transit  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama  upon  any  modes  of  communication  that  may  now 
exist,  or  that  may  be  hereafter  constructed,  shall  be 
open  and  free  to  the  government  and  citizens  of  the 
United  States  .  .  .  the  United  States  guarantee,  posi- 
tively and  efficaciously,  to  New  Granada,  by  the  present 
stipulation,  the  perfect  neutrality  of  the  before-men- 
tioned isthmus,  with  the  view  that  the  free  transit  from 
the  one  to  the  other  sea  may  not  be  interrupted  or  em- 
barrassed in  any  future  time  while  this  treaty  exists; 
and  in  consequence,  the  United  States  also  guarantee, 
in  the  same  manner,  the  rights  of  sovereignty  and  prop- 
erty with  New  Granada  has  and  possesses  over  the  said 
territory. 

In  1849  the  United  States  obtained  a  concession 
from  New  Granada  for  the  construction  of  the 
Panama  Eailroad. 

60 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

The  British  took  alarm,  fearing  that  the  active, 
audacious,  and  enterprising  Yankees  would  ac- 
quire other  privileges  in  the  strip  of  land  uniting 
the  two  continents.^  For  the  piercing,  however, 
of  the  latter,  the  most  practicable  route  seemed 
to  be  not  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  but  the  system 
of  rivers,  lakes,  and  lowlands  which  connected 
the  harbor  of  San  Juan  on  the  Atlantic  with  the 
Bay  of  Fonseca  or  the  harbor  of  Eealejo  on  the 
Pacific.  From  the  sea  up  to  the  Machuca  Eap- 
ids,  about  thirty  miles,  the  San  Juan  Eiver  was 
in  dispute  between  Nicaragua  on  one  side  and 
Great  Britain  (or  the  Mosquitos)  and  New  Gra- 
nada on  the  other.  Another  portion  of  it  was  in 
dispute  between  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Eica.  The 
Bay  of  Fonseca  was  partly  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  Honduras  and  partly  under  that  of  Nicaragua. 
So  in  negotiating  for  this  canal  the  United  States 
would  or  might  have  to  deal  with  the  following 
States:  New  Granada,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Eica, 
and  Honduras,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Mosquitos 
and  Great  Britain. 

The  British-Mosquito  occupation  of  San  Juan 
made  that  place  virtually  a  British  dependency, 
blocking  the  western  terminus  of  the  interoceanic 
transit.  In  the  negotiation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty,  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  aimed 
primarily  at  two  different  objects:  the  United 

1  Union  latino-americana  by  Torres-Caicedo,  p.  74. 

61 


Chapter  III 

States  at  the  realization  of  interoceanic  water  com- 
munication and  Great  Britain  at  the  obstruction 
of  the  apprehended  expansion  of  the  United 
States  in  Central  America.  B}^  force  of  arms 
Great  Britain  held  the  key  to  the  situation  at 
San  Juan,  and  by  her  position  in  the  Mosquito 
country,  in  British  Honduras,  in  the  Bay  Islands, 
and  in  Jamaica  was  capable  of  prompt  and  vig- 
orous action  in  the  retention  and  utilization  of 
that  advantage.  For  the  problem  thus  presented 
to  the  United  States  there  were  two  natural  solu- 
tions: the  complete  and  absolute  withdrawal  by 
Great  Britain  from  every  position  that  she  held 
in  those  territories,  or  her  effectual  inhibition  from 
using  any  such  position  to  oppose  the  free,  un- 
obstructed use  of  the  canal  or  the  expansion  of  the 
United  States. 

The  solution  which  President  Polk  decided  upon 
and  sought  through  his  secretary  of  state,  James 
Buchanan,  to  bring  about  was  a  sort  of  compro- 
mise. It  was  to  induce  or  compel  the  British  to 
abandon  their  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito  In- 
dians, thereby  ceasing  to  obstruct  the  construc- 
tion of  the  canal  and  surrendering  much  of  their 
power  to  command  or  threaten  the  route  adopted 
for  it.  Whether  to  act  directly  upon  Great  Brit- 
ain or  to  influence  her  indirectly  through  the 
States  of  Central  America,  was  still  a  question 
when,  on  the  3d  of  June,  1848,  Buchanan  wrote  to 

62 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

the  United  States  agent  in  Central  America,  Mr. 
Elijah  Hise,  charge  d'affaires: 

Whilst  it  is  our  intention  to  maintain  our  established 
policy  of  non-intervention  in  the  concerns  of  foreign  na- 
tions, you  are  instructed,  by  your  counsel  and  advice, 
should  suitable  occasions  offer,  to  promote  the  reunion 
of  the  states  which  formed  the  federation  of  Central 
America.  In  a  federal  union  among  themselves  consist 
their  strength.  They  will  thus  avoid  domestic  dissen- 
tions  and  render  themselves  respected  by  the  world. 
These  truths  you  can  impress  upon  them  by  the  most 
powerful  argument.  .  .  . 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  dissolution  of  the  Confed- 
eracy of  Central  America  has  encouraged  Great  Britain 
in  her  encroachments  upon  the  territories  of  Honduras, 
Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica,  under  the  mask  of  protect- 
ing the  so-called  Kingdom  of  the  Mosquitos.  .  .  .  Her 
purpose  is  probably  to  obtain  the  control  of  the  route  for 
a  railroad  and  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
oceans  by  the  way  of  Lake  Nicaragua.  .  .  . 

The  government  of  the  United  States  has  not  yet  de- 
termined what  course  it  will  pursue  in  regard  to  the  en- 
croachments of  the  British  government  as  protector  of 
the  King  and  Kingdom  of  the  Mosquitos,  but  you  are  in- 
structed to  obtain  all  the  information  within  your  power 
upon  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  encroachments  and 
communicate  it  with  the  least  possible  delay  to  this  de- 
partment. We  are  also  desirous  to  learn  the  number 
of  the  Mosquito  tribe,  the  degree  of  civilization  they 
have  attained  and  everything  else  concerning  them. 

.  .  .  you  may  inform  the  secretary  of  state  of  Guate- 
mala that  you  are  empowered  to  negotiate  a  treaty  with 
his  government,  .  .  . 

63 


Chapter  III 

You  are  herewith  furnished  with  a  full  power  to  con- 
clude a  treaty  of  commerce  with  the  Republic  of  San 
Salvador.  Similar  treaties  with  the  other  states  of  Cen- 
tral America  would  probably  be  useful  in  fostering  our 
trade  with  them,  and  in  protecting  our  citizens  who  may 
visit  or  reside  in  their  territories.  It  is  not,  however, 
deemed  advisable  to  empower  you  to  conclude  a  treaty 
with  either  Nicaragua,  Honduras  or  Costa  Rica,  until 
you  shall  have  communicated  to  the  department  more  full 
and  authentic  information  in  regard  to  those  states  than 
that  which  it  now  possesses.  You  will  accordingly  be 
diligent  in  collecting  this  information,  which  it  would  be 
desirable  that  the  department  should  receive  without  any 
delay  which  can  be  avoided. 

In  spite  of  the  injunction  not  to  treat  with  Hon- 
duras, Nicaragua,  or  Costa  Eica,  Hise  took  it  on 
himself  to  negotiate  a  commercial  treaty  with 
Honduras  and  both  a  commercial  and  a  canal 
treaty  with  Nicaragua.  The  canal  treaty,  which 
became  known  as  the  Hise-Selva  Treaty,  guaran- 
teed the  neutrality  of  Nicaragua.  It  was  signed 
on  the  21st  of  June,  1849.i 

In  the  meantime  a  new  administration  under 
President  Taylor,  with  John  M.  Clayton  as  Sec- 
retary of  State,  had  been  in'augurated  at  Wash- 
ington. 

In  his  first  annual  message  to  Congress,  De- 
cember 4,  1848,  President  Taylor  said : 

Having  ascertained  that  there  is  no  prospect  of  the 
1  Sen.  Ex.  Dog.  194,  47  cong.  1  sess.,  p.  41. 

64 


The  Mosquito  Coast 

reunion  of  the  five  states  of  Central  America  which 
formerly  composed  the  Republic  of  that  name,  we  have 
separately  negotiated  with  some  of  them,  treaties  of 
amity  and  commerce  which  will  be  laid  before  the  senate. 
A  contract  having  been  concluded  by  a  company  com- 
posed of  American  citizens  for  the  purpose  of  construct- 
ing a  ship  canal  through  the  territory  of  that  state  to 
connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans,  I  have  directed 
the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  with  Nicaragua,  pledging  both 
governments  to  protect  those  who  shall  engage  in  and 
perfect  the  work.  .  .  . 

The  Hise-Selva  Treaty  was  never  submitted  to 
the  Senate.  Mr.  Hise  was  recalled,  and  Mr.  E. 
G.  Squier  was  appointed  as  his  successor.  On 
the  3rd  of  September,  1849,  Mr.  Squier,  acting 
under  instructions  from  the  Department  of  State, 
concluded  a  new  treaty,  by  which  the  United 
States  guaranteed,  not  the  sovereignty  of  Nicara- 
gua, but  the  neutrality  of  the  canal;  and  secured 
for  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  the  exclu- 
sive right  of  its  construction  and  operation.  The 
treaty  recognized  Nicaragua  as  sovereign  of  the 
route  chosen  for  the  canal,  thus  contravening  the 
contention  of  Great  Britain  that  a  considerable 
and  vitally  important  part  of  it  was  under  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Mosquitos.  This  treaty  was 
subsequently  (March  19,  1850)  sent  to  the  Sen- 
ate for  its  advice  and  consent  as  to  ratification, 
but  it  was  never  acted  on. 

Mr.  Squier  sought  also  by  timely  negotiation 

65 


Chapter  III 

to  anticipate  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  to  close  the  western  as  she  had  closed 
the  eastern  end  of  the  route.  By  a  protocol  signed 
the  28th  of  September,  1849,  with  the  plenipoten- 
tiary of  Honduras,^  he  obtained  from  that  State 
an  option  on  Tigre  Island,  a  commanding  posi- 
tion in  the  Bay  of  Fonseca.  The  British  agent 
in  Central  America,  Mr.  Frederick  Chatfield,  tried 
to  counter  this  diplomacy  with  violence.  On  the 
16th  of  October  he  had  the  island  occupied  by  a 
British  force.  Squier  protested.  The  British 
force  was  withdrawn  and  the  island  restored  to 
Honduras,  by  order  of  Admiral  Hornby,  com- 
manding the  British  fleets  in  the  West  Indies. 
Later  both  Chatfield  and  Squier  were  rebuked  by 
their  Governments  for  the  parts  which  they  had 
played  in  the  affair.  Clayton,  through  the  United 
States  minister  in  London,  demanded  a  disavowal 
of  the  act  of  occupation,  which,  after  some  delay, 
was  given,  but  not  in  a  satisfactory  manner.^ 

Had  Chatfield  left  the  United  States  in  its  op- 
tional control  of  Tigre  Island,  the  eifect  would 
have  been  at  the  most  to  prevent  Great  Britain 
from  constructing  the  canal  herself,  which  she 
did  not  want  to  do.  It  would  not  have  removed 
the  British  obstruction  at  San  Juan  or  have  made 
it  possible  for  the  United  States  to  construct  the 

1  Appendix  B. 

2  Anglo-American  Isthmian  Diplomacy  by  M.  W.  Williams,  p. 
66. 

66 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

canal  itself,  which  the  United  States  did  Want 
to  do.  Blocking  the  work  was  more  disconcerting 
to  the  United  States  than  it  was  to  Great  Britain. 
The  latter,  as  mistress  of  San  Juan,  had  nothing 
to  fear  from  any  obstruction  of  the  route  else- 
where. She  could  confidently  look  forward  to  a 
proposal  from  the  United  States  for  a  joint  un- 
dertaking. This  would  furnish  her  the  opportu- 
nity she  wanted  to  impose  conditions  on  the  United 
States,  preventing  or  restricting  its  expansion  in 
Central  America. 

Mr.  Clayton  was  willing  to  accept  war  with 
Great  Britain  if  that  were  necessary  to  the  con- 
struction and  use  of  an  interoceanic  railroad  or 
canal,  but  he  would  not  go  that  length  to  have  it 
a  purely  American  one.  He  accordingly  proposed 
to  the  British  Government  through  our  minister 
at  London,  a  joint  enterprise  under  joint  control, 
indicating  in  the  following  terms  that,  if  his  propo- 
sition were  declined,  the  United  States  would  pro- 
ceed with  the  enterprise  independently  of  Great 
Britain. 

If  however,  the  British  Government  shall  reject  these 
overtures  on  our  part  and  shall  refuse  to  cooperate  with 
us  ui  the  generous  and  philanthropic  scheme  of  rendering 
the  interoceanic  communication  by  way  of  the  port  and 
river  San  Juan,  free  to  all  nations  upon  the  same  terms, 
we  shall  deem  ourselves  justified  in  protecting  our  in- 
terests independently  of  her  aid  and  despite  her  opposi- 
tion and  hostility.    With  a  view  to  this  alternative  we 

67 


Chapter  III 

have  a  treaty  with  the  State  of  Nicaragua,  a  copy  of 
which  has  been  sent  to  you,  and  the  stipulations  of  which 
you  should  unreservedly  impart  to  Lord  Palmerston. 

You  will  inform  him,  however,  that  this  treaty  was 
concluded  without  a  power  or  instructions  from  this  gov- 
ernment; that  the  President  had  no  knowledge  of  its 
existence  or  of  the  intention  to  form  it,  until  it  was  pre- 
sented to  him  by  Mr.  Hise,  our  late  charge  d'affaires  to 
Guatemala,  about  the  first  of  September  last,  and  that 
consequently  we  are  not  bound  to  ratify  it,  and  will  take 
no  step  for  that  purpose,  if  we  can  by  arrangement  with 
the  British  government  place  our  interests  upon  a  just 
and  satisfactory  foundation.  But  if  our  efforts  to  this 
end  should  be  abortive,  the  president  will  not  hesitate  to 
submit  this  or  some  other  treaty  which  may  be  concluded 
by  the  present  charge  d'affaires  to  Guatamala  [E.  G. 
Squier]  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  their  ad- 
vice and  consent,  with  a  view  to  its  ratification,  and  if 
that  enlightened  body  should  approve  it  he  [the  Presi- 
dent] also  will  give  it  his  hearty  sanction,  and  will  exert 
all  his  constitutional  power  to  execute  its  provisions  in 
good  faith,  a  determination  in  which  he  may  confidently 
count  on  the  good  will  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.^ 

With  a  view  to  such  negotiation  Mr.  Abbott 
Lawrence  had  been  sent  as  United  States  minister 
to  London,  where  he  arrived  in  November,  1849. 

Mr.  Lawrence  was  a  Boston  merchant  who,  in 
partnership  with  his  brother  Amos,  had  amassed 
a  vast  fortune.  He  was  also  a  philanthropist  and 
something  of  a  politician.  He  founded  the  Law- 
rence Scientific  School  and  sat  in  Congress  during 
the  session  of  1839-40.    But  he  had  no  experience 

1  Clayton  to  Lawrence,  Oct.  20,  1849. 

68 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

in  diplomacy,  and  his  health,  as  we  shall  see,  was 
to  fail  him  at  an  early  stage  of  his  mission. 

About  the  time  when  he  arrived  in  London,  Sir 
Henry  Lytton  Bulwer  sailed  from  England  with 
credentials  as  minister  to  the  United  States.  On 
the  24th  of  December  he  was  formally  presented 
to  President  Taylor.  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  was  at 
this  time  at  the  zenith  of  his  career,  having  passed 
twenty-two  of  the  thirty-eight  years  which  he  was 
to  devote  to  diplomatic  service.  A  review  of  his 
past  life  may  help  us  to  understand  and  follow 
his  course  of  action  in  the  United  States. 

He  left  Cambridge  University  without  taking  a 
degree,  and  purchased  the  position  of  cornet  in 
the  army,  but  this  did  not  suit  him.  He  sold  out 
and  had  himself  attached  to  the  British  legation  at 
Berlin.  On  his  way  to  his  post  (1827)  he  managed 
to  carry  aw^ay  with  him  in  a  few  days  from  thirty 
to  forty  thousand  dollars  won  at  play.  With  this 
capital  he  gained  admission  to  a  whist  club  at  Ber- 
lin which  was  in  the  habit  of  meeting  at  Prince 
Wittgenstein's,  and  included  among  its  members 
the  most  notable  people  about  the  Court.  Bulwer 
not  only  came  off  winner,  but  also  picked  up  impor- 
tant information  to  which  his  official  superiors 
had  not  access.  With  this  advantage  he  built  up 
a  reputation  in  the  British  Foreign  Office,  which 
insured  him  rapid  promotion.  He  was  soon  sent 
as  attache  to  Vienna  and  then  to  The  Hague. ^ 

^Retrospections  of  an  Active  Life  by  J.  Bigelow,  II,  404. 

69 


Chapter  III 

In  1830  he  was  detached  from  The  Hague  to 
watch  the  progress  of  the  revolution  in  Belgium. 
Lord  Palmerston  was  so  well  pleased  with  his 
reports  that  he  brought  him  into  Parliament.  In 
1837  he  went,  as  secretary  of  the  British  em- 
bassy to  Constantinople,  where  he  negotiated  a 
commercial  treaty  of  great  importance  for  Eng- 
land. In  1839  and  1840  he  was  secretary  at  Paris 
and  in  1843  was  sent  as  ambassador  to  Madrid. 
In  this  position  his  sympathy  with  the  liberal  in- 
surgents and  his  consequent  intrigues  brought 
him  into  such  ill  favor  with  the  Government  that 
on  the  12th  of  June,  1848,  he  was  summarily  re- 
quired to  quit  Madrid  within  twenty-four  hours 
and  Spain  within  forty-eight.  Before  his  return 
to  England  he  was  gazetted  Knight  in  the  Com- 
panion of  the  Bath.  The  coincidence  in  time  be- 
tween this  distinction  and  the  termination  of  his 
mission  to  Spain  has  been  represented  as  purely 
accidental,  but  it  may  be  reasonably  attributed  to 
approval  in  high  quarters  of  his  machinations  in 
Spain.  It  was  at  this  juncture  that  he  was  se- 
lected to  represent  Great  Britain  in  the  United 
States. 

By  art  and  nature  he  was  peculiarly  fitted  for 
the  task  which  he  was  about  to  undertake.  He 
had  associated  with  very  remarkable  men — ^with 
Prince  Talleyrand,  Prince  Lieven,  Count  d'Orsay, 
Lord  Palmerston,  Lord  Beaconsfield,  Lord  Mel- 

70 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

bourne,  besides  many  other  English  statesmen. 
Under  their  influence,  it  would  seem,  he  had  codi- 
fied his  life  in  fixed  rules  or  maxims.  Among 
these  canons  of  his  worldly  wisdom  were  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Never  discuss,  because  neither  you  nor  your  adversary 
will  give  in  to  the  other,  and  he  will  ever  consider  you 
a  stupid  fellow  for  not  agreeing  with  him. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  get  stupid  people  to  change  their 
opinions,  for  they  find  it  so  hard  to  get  an  idea  that  they 
don't  like  to  lose  one. 

Nothing  is  so  common  as  to  make  a  great  blunder  in 
order  to  remedy  a  small  one. 

Nothing  is  so  foolish  as  to  be  wise  out  of  season.^ 

An  American  diplomat  from  whom  I  have  al- 
ready quoted,  speaking  from  personal  recollection, 

says: 

He  was  a  singularly  fascinating  man ;  fascinating  with- 
out being  lovable.  .  .  .  His  talk  was  always  well  in- 
formed without  being  in  the  least  pedantic  or  intensive. 
Every  word  was  most  skillfully  adapted  to  his  purpose, 
whatever  that  purpose  might  be.  The  wish  to  please  and 
win  you  was  artfully  concealed  under  a  languid,  tired- 
out,  valetudinarian  manner,  which  conveyed  an  impres- 
sion of  the  most  perfect  indifference  about  the  effect  he 
was  trying  to  produce.  This  was  the  wooden  horse  in 
which  he  entered  the  citadels  he  wished  to  hold.  .  .  . 
He  was  never  havard;  he  never  talked  apparently  to 
gratify  his  vanity,  nor  did  wine  or  stimulants  of  any  kind, 

i  Some  Maxims  of  the  late  Lord  Dalling  and  Bulwer,  "Nine- 
teenth Cent,  vol.  56,  p.  262. 

.     71 


Chapter  III 

in  the  use  of  which  he  was  anything  but  abstemious,  seem 
to  increase  his  loquacity  a  particle.  Silence  with  him 
was  not  infrequently  as  effective  an  instrument  as  speech. 
It  would  not  do  to  put  too  much  trust  in  his  sincerity, 
nor  any  at  all  in  his  sentimental  professions.  He  was  an 
Epicurean  from  head  to  foot;  the  world  was  his  oyster, 
which  with  any  weapon  that  would  best  serve  his  pur- 
pose, he  would  open.  His  languor  of  manner  was  not, 
however,  altogether  artificial.  His  health  was  delicate, 
and  he  was  a  fearful  consumer  of  drugs.  ...  To  this 
destructive  habit  was  to  be  attributed,  no  doubt  his 
cadaverous  and  utterly  colorless  complexion, — in  this  as 
in  many  other  respects  suggesting  a  comparison  with 
Talleyrand,  whom  of  all  modern  Europeans,  I  think,  he 
would  have  most  wished  to  be  thought  to  resemble.  .  .  . 
He  was  unusually  well  acquainted  with  all  classes  and 
every  rank  of  French  society,  not  even  excepting  the 
demi-monde,  in  which,  as  everywhere  else,  he  knew  how 
to  make  himself  acceptable  at  a  minimum  cost  of  self 
respect.  ...  he  knew  George  Sand  intimately,  and  one 
of  her  most  famous  novels,  Mauprat,  is  said  to  have  been 
inspired  by  him.^ 

John  M.  Clayton,  who  was  to  measure  himself 
with  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  as  co-negotiator  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  had  an  advantage  over 
Sir  Henry  in  being  an  accomplished  lawyer,  equit- 
able, civil,  and  criminal.  He  had,  like  Bulwer, 
served  his  country  as  a  legislator,  having  sat  in 
the  Senate  with  Daniel  Webster,  Henry  Clay,  T. 
H.  Benton,  J.  C.  Calhoun,  Edward  Livingston, 
and  R.  Y.  Hayne.    During  the  Presidency  of  Gen- 

1  Bigelow,  opus  cit.,  IT,  pp.  386,  387,  403,  404.  See  also  London 
Times,  1872— June  3,  p.  6;  June  6,  p.  10;  June  7,  p.  8. 

72 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

eral  Jackson,  at  an  executive  session,  held  on  tlie 
3rd  of  March,  1835,  he  introduced  the  following 
resolution  which  was  carried: 

Besolved,  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be 
respectfully  requested  to  consider  the  expediency  of  open- 
ing negotiations  with  the  governments  of  other  nations, 
and  particularly  with  the  governments  of  Central  Amer- 
ica and  New  Granada,  for  the  purpose  of  effectually  pro- 
tecting, by  suitable  treaty  stipulations  with  them,  such 
individuals  or  companies  as  may  undertake  to  open  a 
communication  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans 
by  the  construction  of  a  ship  canal  across  the  isthmus 
which  connects  North  and  South  America,  and  of  se- 
curing forever  by  such  stipulations,  the  free  and  equal 
right  to  navigate  such  canal  to  all  such  nations,  on  the 
payment  of  such  reasonable  tolls  as  may  be  established 
to  compensate  the  capitalists  who  may  engage  in  such 
undertaking,  and  complete  the  work. 

As  Secretary  of  State  he  wrote  on  the  4th  of 
September,  1849,  the  letter  to  Colonel  Hughes  of 
the  topographical  engineers,  to  which  reference 
has  already  been  made: 

In  the  conversation  I  had  with  you  last  evening  on 
several  topics  of  deep  concern  to  the  present  and  future 
interests  of  our  country,  I  was  struck  by  your  judicious 
and  intelligent  observations  on  the  subject  of  the  various 
routes  for  connecting  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans 
which  have  so  long  been  discussed  before  the  world,  and 
which  have  now  assumed  an  extraordinary  importance. 
The  subject  is  one  which  attracted  my  attention  twenty 
years  ago,  since  which  time  it  has  never  ceased  to  occupy 

73 


Chapter  III 

my  mind;  and  I  have  neglected  no  occasion  of  seeking 
from  well  informed  persons,  accurate,  reliable  and  use- 
ful information  in  regard  to  it,  such  as  might  be  cal- 
culated to  diffuse  light  among  our  citizens  and  serve  as  a 
safe  guide  to  the  public  councils  of  the  nation.  With 
these  objects  very  much  at  heart,  I  made  a  verbal  re- 
quest that  you  would  do  me  the  favor  to  address  a  com- 
munication to  me  upon  these  points  we  conversed  about, 
entering  fully  into  the  questions  they  involve,  and  giv- 
ing in  detail  your  views  and  opinions  thereon,  and  the 
considerations  and  facts  upon  which  they  are  based,  and 
presenting  such  information  and  suggestions  as  your  ex- 
perience and  knowledge  will  enable  you  to  submit. 

Your  attention  is  specially  invited  to  the  importance 
of  a  ship  canal,  of  such  dimensions  as  to  admit  vessels 
of  the  largest  class,  connecting  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans ;  and  you  are  requested  to  state  whether  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  such  a  route  or  routes  may  be 
found  across  the  American  Isthmus,  and  if  so  where? — 
the  length,  capacity,  supply  of  water  dimensions,  and 
probable  cost  of  the  construction,  of  a  work  on  the  most 
eligible  line  that  is  known  to  exist,  best  calculated  to 
subserve  the  great  ends  of  commerce  of  the  civilized 
world,  and  of  the  present  and  prospective  trade  of  the 
Pacific  and  Indian  Oceans.  You  are  also  requested  to 
present  your  views  at  large  in  reference  to  the  different 
projects  which  have  been  presented  to  the  public  for  a 
railroad  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific  exclusively 
within  the  territories  of  the  United  States ;  and  you  will 
be  pleased  to  submit  all  the  information  you  may  be  able 
to  collect  touching  this  important  question.^ 

While  not  as  entertaining  perhaps  as  Bulwer, 
Clayton  had  ** exceeding  powers  of  conversation'* 

1  Letter  in  answer  to  the  Eon.  John  M.  Clayton,  etc.,  p.  3. 

74 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

and  an  amiable  disposition,  by  which  he  became 
very  popular  in  Washington  society.^ 

So  far  as  interest  in  one's  work  is  a  factor  of 
efficiency,  the  foregoing  resolution  and  communi- 
cation augur  well  for  the  success  of  Secretary 
Clayton  in  any  mission  he  might  undertake  for  the 
establishment  of  transcontinental  or  transisth- 
mian  communication.  But  he  had  never  held  any 
diplomatic  office.  He  had  not  the  insight  into 
human  character,  the  political  sense,  or  the  states- 
manlike vision  of  Sir  Henry  Bulwer. 

In  1868  Bulwet  published  a  work  entitled  His- 
torical Characters:  Mackintosh,  Canning,  Talley- 
rand, Corbett,  Peel.  Treating  of  the  great  French 
diplomat,  he  says: 

**The  particular  and  especial  talent  of  M.  de 
Talleyrand  was,  as  I  have  more  than  once  exemp- 
lified, his  tact,  the  art  of  seizing  the  important 
point  in  an  affair,  the  peculiar  characteristic  of 
an  individual,  the  genius  and  tendency  of  an 
epoch. ' ' 

Bulwer  must  have  felt  as  he  wrote  this  passage, 
that  he  was  describing  himself  or  ideals  of  his,  for 
the  faculties  which  he  here  ascribes  to  Talleyrand 
were  eminently  his  own. 

When  the  United  States  thought  of  undertaking 
or  promoting  a  work  of  such  world-wide  interest 

^Memoirs  of  John  M.  Clayton  by  J.  P.  Comegys. 

75 


Chapter  III 

and  importance  as  the  construction  of  an  inter- 
oceanic  waterway,  it  occurred  to  Great  Britain,  or 
at  least  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  that  this  might  be 
an  opportunity  to  entice  the  United  States  into 
an  association  that  would  commit  it  to  participat- 
ing in  the  international  politics  of  the  Old  World 
and  admit  Great  Britain  to  participation  in  the 
affairs  of  the  New.  The  cooperation  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  in  the  grand  task 
of  enlightening  and  uplifting  humanity,  of  reform- 
ing the  world  according  to  Anglo-Saxon  patterns 
and  ideals,  was  the  form  in  which  the  new  Brit- 
ish minister  presented  his  designs  in  after-dinner 
speeches  to  the  American  public.  The  idea  of 
Anglo-American  community  of  interest  and  duty 
was  the  topic  of  his  address  to  the  President  on 
the  occasion  of  his  presentation. 

Sir:  I  need  not  say  that  it  gives  me  the  sincerest 
gratification  to  be  the  bearer  of  the  credentials  which  I 
have  just  had  the  honor  of  placing  in  your  hands.  Per- 
mit me  to  say  that  in  coming  to  your  country  I  do  not 
feel  that  I  come  as  a  foreigner  to  a  foreign  land.  Our 
nations  speak  the  same  language,  spring  from  the  same 
race  and  seem  especially  entrusted  by  Providence  with 
the  same  glorious  task  of  illustrating  the  Anglo-Saxon 
name  by  extending  the  best  interests  of  civilization 
through  two  great  divisions  of  the  world,  I  have  an  en- 
tire confidence,  Sir,  that  our  two  governments  will  act 
with  the  most  perfect  concord  in  carrying  out  this  great 
design,  and  for  my  own  part  I  unfeignedly  assure  you 
that  I  could  not  have  a  duty  more  congenial  to  my  f eel- 

76 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

ings  than  that  of  cultivating  the  most  intimate  and 
friendly  relations  between  the  Queen,  my  sovereign  and 
that  great  Republic  of  which  you  are  the  worthy  and 
distinguished  President.^ 

In  the  original  form  of  the  speech,  that  is,  as 
Bnlwer  had  prepared  it,  or  as  it  had  been  prepared 
for  him,  the  words  in  italics  read  *^  through  both 
hemispheres;"  in  other  words,  throughout  the 
world.  That  was  too  much  for  a  President  of  the 
United  States  to  accede  to,  even  in  the  perfunc- 
tory course  of  a  presentation.  Fortunately  for 
both  parties,  a  draft  of  the  speech  had  been  sub- 
mitted to  Clayton,  in  advance,  for  his  approval; 
and  as  a  consequence  the  scope  of  the  imaginary 
Anglo-American  crusade  was  cut  down  from  the 
territories  of  the  habitable  globe  to  the  confines 
of  the  two  continents  of  America. 

To  Bulwer's  address  the  President  replied: 

I  am  much  pleased  to  receive  from  your  hands  the  let- 
ter of  her  Majesty,  your  Sovereign,  which  accredits  you, 
as  the  Envoy,  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary of  Great  Britain  near  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  and  I  cordially  welcome  you  in  that  high  char- 
acter as  a  friend. 

Beyond  the  identity  of  origin,  language,  and  duties,  so 
appropriately  alluded  to  by  you,  as  connecting  our  re- 
spective countries,  there  is  much,  Sir,  in  their  present 
relations  calculated  to  impart  unusual  interest  to  your 
mission.    That  the  best  plans  for  extending  the  bless- 

^  Index  and  Archives,  Dept.  of  State. 

77 


Chapter  III 

ings  of  peace,  commerce,  and  civilization,  may  be  exe- 
cuted by  our  perfect  concord  is  my  most  earnest  wish; 
and  the  confidence  you  have  expressed ;  that  the  two  na- 
tions will  act  in  concert  and  harmony  in  all  wise  and 
well  directed  efforts  for  the  accomplishment  of  such  ob- 
jects, is  accepted  by  me  in  the  cordial  and  sincere  spirit 
in  which  it  has  been  proposed  by  you. 

I  hope.  Sir,  that  your  residence  in  this  country  may 
prove  as  agreeable  to  you  personally  as  you  have  given 
me  reason  for  believing  that  it  will  be  honorable  and  ad- 
vantageous, both  to  Great  Britain  and  America.^ 

But  this  cautious  reply  and  Clayton's  correc- 
tion, were  lost  on  the  British  minister.  A  few 
days  before  he  put  his  signature  to  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  he  said,  speaking  for  publication : 

.  .  .  The  glorious  spectacle  of  two  great  states,  both 
powerful  and  flourishing,  the  one  in  the  prime  of  j^outh, 
the  other  in  the  vigor  of  manhood ;  two  states,  the  same 
in  origin,  in  language,  and  above  all,  in  character,  stand- 
ing side  by  side,  hand  in  hand,  in  the  van  of  mankind: 
the  first  [foremost  states]  wherever  true  glory  is  to  be 
gained,  justice  and  mercy  to  be  vindicated,  commerce, 
civilization,  and  religion  to  be  spread.  The  past  hallows 
our  union;  the  future  smiles  on  it,  and  Heaven  cannot 
but  bless  it, — for  it  is  the  union  of  one  family  and  has 
for  its  object  the  benefit  of  the  whole  world.^ 

When  Bulwer  arrived  in  the  United  States 
neither  he  nor  Clayton  had  instructions  for  the 
negotiation  of  a  treaty.  But  on  Clayton's  invi- 
tation, Bulwer  entered  into  conference  with  him 

1  Index  and  Archives,  Dept.  of  State. 

2  Speech  at  Dinner  of  Maryland  Hist.  Soc,  Bait.,  Apl.  6,  1850. 

78 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations, 

on  the  subject  of  an  interoceanic  waterway.^ 
They  soon  found  themselves  in  agreement  on  the 
general  proposition  that  one  should  be  constructed 
without  interfering  with  the  status  quo  in  Central 
America,  any  more  than  was  necessary  in  its 
realization  and  the  insurance  of  its  neutrality. 
The  Mosquito  question  was  not  to  be  considered, 
except  to  the  limited  extent  determined  by  these 
purposes.  On  the  13th  of  February,  1850,  Sir 
Henry  Bulwer  forwarded  for  Lord  Palmerston's 
criticism  the  pro  jet  of  a  treaty  drawn  up  by  him- 
self and  Clayton.  This  document  is  here  pre- 
sented with  the  amendments  that  were  made  in  it 
prior  to  its  ratification. 

Texi;  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 

Italics  indicate  parts  replaced  by  others,  and 
brackets  parts  omitted.  The  matter  in  the  right- 
hand  column  was  substituted  for  the  parts  in  ital- 
ics or  was  inserted  in  the  vacant  spaces,  in  the 
left-hand  column.  The  two  columns,  read  to- 
gether, furnish  the  treaty  in  its  original  form,  or 
as  projected,  and  in  its  final  form,  or  as  ratified. 

As  projected  2.  Addenda 

PREAMBLE 
The  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica and  Her   Britannic  Majes- 
ty,   being   desirous    of    consoli- 

1  Memoir  of  J.  M.  Clayton,  Comegys,  p.  192. 

2  The  text  of  this  colmnn  is  taken  from  the  Clayton  Papers  in 

79 


Chapter  III 


dating  the  relations  of  amity 
which  so  happily  subsist  be- 
tween them,  by  setting  forth 
and  fixing  in  a  convention 
their  views  and  intentions  with 
reference  to  any  means  of 
communication  by  ship-canal 
which  may  be  constructed  be- 
tween the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
Oceans  by  the  way  of  the 
River  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua 
and  either  (or  both)  of  the 
lakes  of  Nicaragua  or  Mana- 
gua, to  any  port  or  place  on 
the  Pacific  Ocean,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  has 
conferred  full  powers  on  John 
M.  Clayton,  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States,  and  Her 
Britannio  Majesty  on  the 
Right  Hon.  Sir  Henry  Lytton 
Bulwer, 


a    member    of    Her    Majesty's 
most    honorable    privy    council, 
KJnight  commander  of  the  most 
honorable   order   of    the    Bath, 
and 
envoy  extraordinary  and  min- 
ister    plenipotentiary    of    Her 
Britannic      Majesty      to      the 
United    States,    for    the    afore- 
said   purpose;     and    the    said 
plenipotentiaries      having      ex- 
changed     their      full      povvers, 
which    were    found    to    be    in 
proper    form,    have    agreed    to 
the  following  articles: 

the  Library  of  Congress  (IX,  1640-1649).  It  was  published  with- 
out the  signatures  in  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  194,  47  Cong.,  1  Sess.,  pp.  64, 
65,  and  with  the  signatures,  in  Brit,  and  For.  State  Papers,  vol. 
40,  pp.  1008  et  seq.  In  these  two  publications  the  words  "or 
both"  in  the  preamble  are  not  in  parentheses, 

80 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 


ARTICLE  I 


The  govermnents  of 


Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States 

hereby  declare  that  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  will  ever 
obtain  or  maintain  for  itself 
any  exclusive  control  over  the 
said  ship-canal,  agreeing  that 
neither  will  ever  erect  or  main- 
tain any  fortifications  com- 
manding  the    same   or    in   the 

vicinity  thereof,  or  oocupy 

or  colonize 


The  United  States  and  Great 
Britain 


or  fortify 


either 


or 


Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the 
Mosquito  Coast,  or  any  part  of 
Central  America;  nor  will 

Great  Britain  or  the  United 
States  assume  or  exercise  any 


dominion  over  the  same; 


81 


assume  or  exercise  any  domin- 
ion over 


either  make  use  of  any  protec- 
tion which  either  affords  or 
may  afford,  or  any  alliance 
which  either  has  or  may  have 
to  or  with  any  state  or  people, 
for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or 
maintaining  any  such  fortifica- 
tions, or  of  occupying,  fortify- 
ing, or  colonizing,  Nicaragua, 
Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  Coast, 
or  any  part  of  Central  America 
or  of  assuming  or  exercising 

nor  will  the  United  States  or 
Great  Britain 


Chapter  III 

take  advantage  of  any  inti- 
macy, or  use  any  alliance,  con- 
nection or  influence  that  either 
may  possess  with  any  state  or 

people  goyernment 

through  [or  by]  whose  terri- 
tory the  said  canal  may  pass, 
for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or 
holding,  directly  or  indirectly, 
for  the 


subjects  or  citizens 

of  the  one  any  rights  or  advan- 
tages in  regard  to  [the]  com- 
merce or  navigation  through 
the  said  canal,  which  shall  not 
be  offered  on  the  same  terms  to 
the 

tuhjects  or  citizens 

of  the  other. 


citizens  or  subjects 


citizens  or  subjects 


ABTICLE  II 


Vessels  of 
Great   Britain   or    The    United 
States 

traversing  the  said  canal  shall, 
in  case  of  war  between  the  con- 
tracting parties,  be  exempted 
from 

detention,  or  capture,  by  either 
of  the  belligerents,  and  this 
provision  shall  extend  to  such 
a  distance  from  the  two  ends 
of  the  said  canal  as  [it]  may 
hereafter  be  found  expedient  to 
establish. 


The    United    States    or    Great 
Britain 


blockade, 


83 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 

ABTICLE  in 

In  order  to  secure  the  con- 
struction of  the  said  canal,  the 
contracting  parties  engage  that, 
if  any  such  canal  shall  be  un- 
dertaken upon  fair  and  equit- 
able terms  by  any  parties  hav- 
ing the  authority  of  the  local 
government  or  governments 
through  whose  territory  the 
same  may  pass,  then  the  per- 
sons employed  in  making  the 
said  canal  and  their  property, 
used  or  to  be  used  for  that  ob- 
ject, shall  be  protected,  from 
the   commencement   of 

the 
said  canal  to  its  completion, 
by  the  governments  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Brit- 
ain, from  unjust  detention, 
confiscation,  seizure  or  any 
violence 

tchatever.  whatsocTer. 

ABTICLE  IV 

The  contracting  parties  will 
use  whatever  influence  they  re- 
spectively exercise  with  any 
state,  [or]  states,  or 

u-ith  any  people  govemmentB 

possessing  or  claiming  to  pos- 
sess, any  jurisdiction  or  right 
over  the  territory  which  the 
said  canal  shall  traverse,  or 
which  shall  be  near  the  waters 
applicable  thereto,  in  order  to 
induce  such  states  or 

people  governments 

83 


Chapter  III 


to  facilitate 

its  the 

construction 

of  the  said  canal 
by  every  means  in  their  power, 
^d  furthermore, 

Chreat  Britain  and  The  United      The  United   States  and  Great 
States  Britain 

agree  to  use  their  good  oflBces 
wherever  or  however  it  may  be 
moat  expedient,  in  order  to  pro- 
cure the  establishment  of  two 
free  ports,  one  at  each  end  of 
the  said  canal. 

ABTICLE  V 

The  contracting  parties  fur- 
ther engage  that  when 

any  such  the  said 

canal  shall  have  been  com- 
pleted, they  will  protect  it  from 
interruption,  seizure,  or  unjust 
confiscation,  and  that  they  will 
guarantee  the  neutrality  there- 
of, so  that  the  said  canal  may 
forever  be  open  and  free,  and 
the  capital  invested  therein  se- 
cure. Nevertheless  the  govern- 
ments of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  in  according 
their  protection  to  the  con- 
struction of  the 


said 


canal  [which  this  treaty  speci- 
fies] and  guaranteeing  its  neu- 
trality and  security  when  com- 
pleted, always  understand  that 
this  protection  and  guarantee 
are  granted  conditionally,  and 
may  be  withdrawn  by  both 
governments  or  either  govern- 

M 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 


ment,  if  both  governments  or 
either  government  should  deem 
that  the  persons  or  company 
undertaking  or  managing  the 
same  adopt  or  establish  such 
regulations  concerning  the 
traffic  thereupon  as  are  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  and  inten- 
tion of  this  convention; 
either  by  making  unfair  dis- 
criminations in  favor  of  the 
commerce  of  one  of  the  con- 
tracting parties  over  the  com- 
merce of  the  other,  or  by 

inflicting 

oppressive  exactions 

and 

unreasonable  tolls  upon  pas- 
sengers, 

ships  or 

merchandise. 

Neither  party,  however,  shall 
withdraw  the  aforesaid  protec- 
tion and  guarantee  without 
first  giving  six  months'  notice 
to  the  other. 


imposing 


or 


vessels,  goods,  wares, 


or  other  articles. 


ABTICLE  VI 


The  contracting  parties  in 
this  convention  engage  to  in- 
vite every  [nation],  state  [or 
people]  with 

ichom 


which 


both  or  either  have  friendly  in- 
tercourse, to  enter  into  stipu- 


85 


Chapter  III 


lations  with  them  similar  to 
those  which  they  have  entered 
into  with  each  other,  to  the  end 
that 


the  whole  world 

may  share  in  the  honor  and 
advantage  of  having  contrib- 
uted to  a  work  of  such  general 
interest  and  importance 


and  the  contracting  parties 
likewise  agree  that  each  shall 
enter  into  treaty  stipulations 
with  such  of  the  Central  Amer- 
ican [nations],  states,  [or  peo- 
ple] as  they  may  deem  advis- 
able for  the  purpose  of  more 
eflfectually  carrying  out  the 
great  design  of  this  conven- 
tion; namely  that  of  construct- 
ing and  maintaining  the 

'proposed 

ship  -  commimication  between 
the  two  oceans  for  the  benefit 
of  mankind,  on  equal  terms  to 
all,  and  of  protecting  the  same ; 
and  they  also  agree  that  the 
good  oflBces  of  either  shall  be 
employed  when  requested  by 
the  other,  in  aiding  and  assist- 
ing the  negotiation  of  such 
treaty  stipulations; 


all  other  states 


as    the    canal    herein    contem- 
plated; 


said  canal  as  a 


86 


and  should  any  differences  arise 
as  to  right  or  property  over 
the  territory  through  which  the 
said  canal  shall  pass,  between 
the  states  or  governments  of 
Central  America,  and  such  dif- 
ferences should  in  any  way  im- 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 


pede  or  obstruct  the  execution 
of  the  said  canal,  the  govern- 
ments of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  will  use  their 
good  oifices  to  settle  such  dif- 
ferences in  the  manner  best 
suited  to  promote  the  interests 
of  the  said  canal,  and  to 
strengthen  the  bonds  of  friend- 
ship and  alliance  which  exist 
between  the  contracting  par- 
ties. 


ARTICLE  vn 


It  being  desirable  that  no 
time  should  be  unnecessarily 
lost  in  commencing 

the 


and  constructing 


great  undertaking  herein  con- 
templated, 

the  governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  de- 
termine to  give  their  support 
and  encouragement  to  such 
persons  or  company  as  may 
first  oflFer  to  commence  the 
same,  with  the  necessary  capi- 
tal, the  consent  of  the  local 
authorities,  and  on  such  prin- 
ciples as  accord  with  the  spirit 
and  intention  of  this  conven- 
tion; 


said  canal 


and  if  any  persons  or  company 
should  already  have  with  any 
state  through  which  the  pro- 
posed ship-canal  may  pass,  a 
contract  for  the  construction  of 
such  a  canal  as  that  specified 
in  this  convention,  to  the  stip- 
ulations    of     which     contract 


87 


Chapter  III 


neither  of  the  contracting 
parties  in  this  convention  have 
any  just  cause  to  object,  and 
the  said  persons  or  company 
shall,  moreover,  have  made 
preparations,  and  expended 
time,  money,  and  trouble,  on 
the  faith  of  such  contract,  it 
is  hereby  agreed  that  such  per- 
sons or  company  shall  have  a 
priority  of  claim  over  every 
other  person,  persons,  or  com- 
pany to  the  protection  of  the 
governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain,  and 
be  allowed  a  year  from  the  date 
of  the  exchange  of  the  ratifica- 
tions of  this  convention  for 
concluding  their  arrangements, 
and  presenting  evidence  of  8ufl&- 
cient  capital  subscribed  to  ac- 
complish the  contemplated  un- 
dertaking; it  being  understood 
that  if,  at  the  expiration  of 
the  aforesaid  period,  such  per- 
sons or  company  be  not  able 
to  commence  and  carry  out  the 
proposed  enterprise,  then  the 
governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  shall 
be  free  to  afford  their  protec- 
tion to  any  other  persons  or 
company  that  shall  be  prepared 
to  commence  and  proceed  with 
the  construction  of  the  canal 
in   question. 


ARTICLE  Tin 


The     governments     of     the 
United  States  and  Great  Brit- 


in    entering    into    the    present      having  not  only  desired,  in 

88 


The  Clayton-Bulwer  Negotiations 


convention,  have  not  only  de- 
sired 

to  accomplish  a  particular  ob- 
ject, but  also  to  establish  a 
general  principle;  they  [there- 
fore] hereby  agree  to 

take  under  their  consideration 
any  project  for  a 


canal  or  railway, 

tchich  may  he  submitted  to 
them,  and  which  may  have  for 
its  purpose  to  connect  the  At- 
lantic and  Pacific,  or  to  short- 
en and  expedite  the  transit  of 
persons,  ships,  or  merchandise, 
between  the  two  great  oceans; 
and  should  either  of  the  two 
governments  deem  it  to  be  bene- 
ficial to  the  general  interests 
of  commerce  and  civilization  to 
extend  its  support,  encourage- 
ment, or  protection  to  such 
railway  or  canal,  it  will  forth- 
with invite  the  other  of  the 
two  governments  to  be  a  joint 
party  in  affording  such  pro- 
tection, support,  or  encourage- 
ment; and  will  neither  request 
nor  accept  from  any  persons, 
company,  or  state  any  advan- 
tages or  privileges  for  its  own 
citizens  or  subjects  with  re- 
spect to  such  radlway  or  canal 
which  shall  not  be  open  for  all 
other  governments  to  obtain 
for  their  citizens  or  subjects 
upon  the  same  terms  as  those 
which  are  proposed  to  qr  ac- 
cepted by  itself. 


tering  into  this  convention. 


extend  their  protection,  by 
treaty  stipulations,  to  any 
other  practicable  communica- 
tions, whether  by 

across  the  isthmus  which  con- 
nects North  and  South  Amer- 
ica, and  especially  to  the  inter- 
oceanic  communications,  should 
the  same  prove  to  be  practica- 
ble, whether  by  canal  or  rail- 
way, which  are  now  proposed 
to  be  established  by  the  way 
of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama. 
In  granting,  however,  their 
joint  protection  to  any  such 
canals  or  railways  as  are  by 
this  article  specified,  it  is  al- 
ways understood  by  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  that 
the  parties  constructing  or 
owning  the  same  shall  impose 
no  other  charges  or  conditions 
of  traffic  thereupon  than  the 
aforesaid  governments  shall  ap- 
prove of  as  just  and  equitable; 
and  that  the  same  canals  or 
railways,  being  open  to  the  cit- 
izens and  subjects  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Brit- 
ain on  equal  terms,  shall  also  be 
open  on  like  terms  to  the  citi- 
zens and  subjects  of  every  other 
state  which  is  willing  to  grant 
thereto  such  protection  as  the 
United  States  engag«  to  afford. 


89 


Chapter  III 


ABTICLE  IX 


J.  M.  Clayton, 

H.     L.     BULWEB. 


The  ratifications  of  this  con- 
vention shall  be  exchanged  at 
Washington  within  six  months 
from  this  day,  or  sooner  if  pos- 
sible. 

In  faith  whereof  we,  the  re- 
spective Plenipotentiaries,  have 
signed  this  convention,  and 
have  hereunto  affixed  our  seals. 

Done  at  Washington,  the 
nineteenth  day  of  April,  anno 
Domini  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  fifty. 

John  M.  Clayton, 
Henry  Lytton  Bulwer. 


With  the  project  of  the  treaty,  Bulwer  for- 
warded to  Lord  Palmerston  the  following  agree- 
ment: 


If  this  project  be  approved  of  by  the  government  of 
her  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  on  or  before  the  tenth  of  April  next  (1850),  it 
shall  then  forthwith  be  converted  into  a  solemn  treaty 
binding  between  the  two  states. 

But  if,  on  the  contrary,  it  should  not  be  fully  approved 
of  by  either  or  both  these  governments  on  or  before  the 
10th  of  April,  1850,  it  is  then  fully  agreed,  understood 
and  declared  by  the  undersigned  that  the  said  project  is 
to  be  considered  as  altogether  null  and  void;  and  that 
all  that  has  passed  relative  thereto  shall  be  held  as  if  it 
had  never  taken  place. 

J.  M.  Clayton. 
H.  L.  Bulwer. 


90 


IV 

The  Protectorate  Under  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 

In  his  letter  transmitting  the  treaty  to  Palmer- 
ston,  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  said: 

.  .  .  having  heard  of  the  very  serious  illness  of  Mr. 
Lawrence  and  been  informed  by  Mr.  Claj^on  that,  if  this 
gentleman  recovers,  he  will  not  be  able  to  transact  pub- 
lic business  for  a  considerable  time,  I  deemed  that  I  stood 
in  one  of  those  positions  in  which  it  is  necessary  for  a 
public  agent  to  take  upon  himself  a  certain  degree  of 
responsibility  for  the  sake  of  the  public  service ;  and  con- 
sequently when  Mr.  Claji:on  after  informing  me  of  Mr. 
Lawrence's  severe  indisposition  and  explaining  to  me 
the  very  critical  position  in  which  he  himself  stood,  added 
that  he  must  either  deliver  up  the  whole  subject  to 
popular  discussion  and  determination  or  come  to  some 
immediate  settlement  upon  it,  I  entered  with  him  into  a 
full  consideration  of  the  affair,  and  finally  agreed  to  sub- 
mit to  your  Lordship's  sanction  the  enclosed  project  of 
convention  ...  its  object  being  to  exclude  all  questions 
of  the  disputes  between  Nicaragua  and  the  Mosquitos; 
but  to  settle  in  fact  all  that  it  was  essential  to  settle 
with  regard  to  these  disputes  as  far  as  the  ship  com- 
munication between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  and  the 
navigation  of  the  River  San  Juan  were  concerned.^ 

1  The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was  thus  purely  commercial.  It 
was  not  formed  to  settle  the  Mosquito  question,  but  to  prevent 
the  Mosquito  question  being  an  obstacle  to  the  completion  of  the 
American  canal.  {Quart.  Rev.  Vol.  XCIX,  1856,  Article  by  H.  L. 
Bulwer. ) 

91 


Chapter  IV 

Thus  Bulwer  and  Clayton  agreed  to  concentrate 
their  attention  on  the  requirements  of  the  canal. 
The  problem  of  ousting  Great  Britain  from  ob- 
jectionable occupancy  in  Central  America  irre- 
spectively of  the  canal,  was  to  be  put  o5P  to  an  in- 
definite future.  The  different  attitude  taken  to- 
ward this  matter  by  Abbot  Lawrence  was  probably 
of  more  weight  than  the  state  of  Lawrence's 
health  in  determining  Clayton  to  transfer  the  ne- 
gotiations from  London  to  Washington. 

Before  the  project  of  the  treaty  could  have 
reached  England  its  provisions  became  known  in 
the  United  States,  and  Clayton  was  given  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Senate  would  not  approve  of 
his  attitude  toward  the  general  question  of  Mos- 
quito sovereignty.  On  that  subject  it  agreed  with 
Lawrence  rather  than  with  Clayton.  As  a  con- 
sequence Clayton  perforce  adopted  the  view  of  the 
Senate,  that  British  influence  was  to  be  abolished 
throughout  the  Mosquito  Coast,  and  he  applied 
himself  to  prevailing  upon  Bulwer  to  do  likewise. 
This  was  to  propose  that  Bulwer  do  the  very  thing 
which  he  was  bent  on  preventing — that  he  commit 
himself  to  failing  in  his  mission.  Clayton  was 
insistent.  Bulwer  was  immovable.  In  vain  did 
Clayton  threaten  to  defeat  what  he  supposed  was 
the  common  object  of  the  negotiators.  Bulwer 
with  an  air  of  injured  innocence,  protested  against 
Clayton's  inconstancy.  It  ended  in  Clayton's 
leaving  the  Mosquito  question  unsettled  as  be- 

92 


The  British  Protectorate 

tween  him  and  Bulwer,  but  settled  in  his  own  mind 
to  his  satisfaction.  Great  Britain  was  to  retain 
her  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito  Coast,  but  in 
name  only.  She  was  to  be  the  merely  nominal  or 
titular  protector  of  the  Mosquitos,  renouncing  all 
right  to  the  use  of  force.  This  was  accomplished, 
he  thought,  by  the  provisions,  as  finally  worded, 
of  Article  I.^  Elated  with  this  flattering  delusion, 
he  wrote  privately  to  Lawrence : 

April  22,  1850. 
Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer  concluded  a  treaty  with  me 
on  the  19th  instant,  which  you  will  remember,  was  the 
anniversary  of  the  Lexington  and  Concord  affair.  The 
treaty  is  honorable  to  both  countries.  It  is  very  like  the 
pro  jet  I  sent  to  you;  but  it  additionally  provides  that 
neither  party  shall  make  use  of  any  protection  or  al- 
liance for  the  purpose  of  occupying,  fortifying,  coloniz- 
ing, or  assuming  or  exercising  any  dominion  whatsoever, 
over  any  part  of  Central  America  or  the  Mosquito 
Coast,  so  that  our  friends  over  the  water  can  neither 
occupy,  etc.  to  protect  nor  protect  to  occupy  etc.  You 
will  ask  what  becomes  of  the  protectorate?  I  answer 
*'stat  nominis  umhra,^'  it  stands  the  shadow  of  a  name. 
Use  all  your  good  offices  to  persuade  Lord  Palmerston  to 
agree  to  the  treaty.  My  friend  Bulwer  is  evidently 
somewhat  uneasy  lest  Palmerston  should  censure  him  for 
consenting  to  so  much,  but  Bulwer  could  not  have  possi- 
bly made  any  treaty  with  me  on  any  better  terms  for 
England.2 

According  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  **the  treaty 

iFor  correspondence,  etc.,  on  this  point  see  Appendix  C. 
2  Clayton  Paperg,  IX,  1661. 

93 


Chapter  IF 

left  the  protection  existing,  but  forbade  it  to  be 
used  for  the  purpose  of  dominion. "  He  held  that 
it  could  be  used  to  protect  the  Mosquitos  in  the 
maintenance  of  their  sovereignty,  should  it  ever 
be  assailed  or  contested,  that  the  employment  of 
British  troops  in  Central  America  for  that  pur- 
pose would  not  constitute  either  occupation  or 
dominion  as  understood  in  the  treaty. 

American  statesmen  generally  did  not  agree, 
either  with  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  or  with  Clayton. 
They  understood  that  Great  Britain  was  required 
to  abandon  her  protectorate  altogether,  in  name 
as  well  as  in  substance,  leaving  the  Mosquitos  to 
take  care  of  themselves,  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Nicaragua  and  of  Honduras.  Both  parties  to  the 
treaty  agreed  never  to  *^  exercise  any  dominion 
over  Nicaragua,  Costa  Eica,  the  Mosquito  Coast, 
or  any  part  of  Central  America.''  The  United 
States  held  that  the  so-called  protectorate  of  the 
Mosquito  Coast  was  ** dominion."  The  question 
then  was  this:  Does  a  prohibition  to  exercise 
dominion  prohibit  continuing  to  exercise  it;  does 
it  require  the  abandonment  of  actual  dominion? 
It  may  be  admitted  as  a  general  principle  that 
sovereignty  or  dominion  cannot  be  surrendered 
by  implication,  that  it  cannot  be  renounced  except 
in  express  terms.  But  this  principle  contem- 
plates bona  fide,  legitimate  sovereignty  or  do- 
minion ;  it  is  at  least  a  debatable  question  whether 
it  applies  to  such  irregular,  illegitimate  influence 

94 


The  British  Protectorate 

as  that  exercised  by  Great  Britain  on  the  Mos- 
quito Coast,  which  she  did  not  pretend  herself  to 
be  sovereignty,  which  she  denied  to  be  dominion, 
which  she  called  a  protectorate. 

The  political  relation  of  protector  and  protected  is  not 
a  new  one.  It  grows  out  of  contract.  It  implies  sov- 
ereignty in  each  party,  for  when  the  sovereignty  of  the 
lesser  merges  in  that  of  the  greater  the  peculiar  relation 
ceases.^ 

One  reason  why  the  United  States  would  not 
recognize  Mosquito  sovereignty  was  that  it  in- 
volved Indian  rights  of  eminent  domain,  of  land 
ownership.  Great  Britain  might  have  a  title 
which  extinguished  or  excluded  that  of  an  Ameri- 
can Republic,  but  no  American  statesman  would 
admit  that  such  title  could  be  held  by  a  tribe  of 
Indians. 

As  to  the  IMosquito  title,  the  United  States  could  not 
possibly  recognize  that,  without  abandoning  a  principle 
as  old  as  their  existence,  for  you  know,  we  never  acknowl- 
edge any  right  in  an  Indian  in  any  part  of  America,  ex- 
cept a  mere  right  of  occupancy,  always  liable  to  be  ex- 
tinguished (that's  our  technical  word  for  it)  at  the  will 
of  the  discoverers.  "We  could  not  recognize  such  a  title 
in  any  case  without  admitting  the  illegality  of  the  tenure 
by  which  we  hold  all  the  lands  in  our  country.^ 

Lord  Palmerston,  while  admitting  the  general 
doctrine  for  which  the  United  States  contended, 

1  Lawrence  to  Clayton,  April  19,  1850. 

2  Clayton  to  Lawrence,  May  2,  1850. 

95 


Chapter  IV 

held  that  the  case  of  the  Mosquitos  was  sui 
generis  and  stood  upon  its  own  peculiar  circum- 
stances.^ Clayton  took  little  or  no  account  of  this 
attitude  of  the  British  Government.  About  a  year 
after  he  had  been  informed  of  it  he  wrote : 

Having  always  regarded  an  Indian  title  as  a  mere  right 
of  occupancy,  we  can  never  agree  that  such  a  title  should 
be  treated  otherwise  than  as  a  thing  to  be  extinguished 
at  the  will  of  the  discoverer  of  the  country.  Upon  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty  Great  Britain  will  no  longer 
have  any  interest  to  deny  this  principle  which  she  has 
recognized  in  every  case  in  common  with  us.  *'Stat 
nominis  umhra/'  for  she  can  neither  occupy,  fortify  or 
colonize,  nor  exercise  dominion  or  control,  in  any  part 
of  the  Mosquito  Coast  or  Central  America.  To  attempt 
to  do  either  of  these  things  after  the  exchange  of  ratifi- 
cations, would  inevitably  produce  a  rupture  with  the 
United  States.^ 

Great  Britain's  policy  in  the  Mosquito  country 
was  really  intervention,  the  essence  of  which  is 
illegality,  even  when  acceptable  to  the  party  in 
whose  behalf  it  is  carried  out.  But  the  interven- 
tion in  this  case  was  a  form  of  dominion. 

This  government  [Mosquito]  was  not  only  British  in 
personnel,  but  was  administered  according  to  British 
customs.  It  was  also  dependent  upon  Great  Britain  for 
the  maintenance  of  its  authority.     If  that  did  not  amount 

1  Rives  to  Clayton,  Sept.  25,  1849. 

2  Clayton  to  Squier,  May  7,  1850. 

96 


The  British  Protectorate 

to  an  occupation  with  the  exercise  of  dominion,  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  understand  what  could.^ 

Neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States 
was  to  *^ assume  or  exercise  dominion."  What 
is  the  meaning  of  this  phrase?  If  it  were  ** as- 
sume and  exercise  dominion"  it  might  be  inter- 
preted as  a  single  idea  comprehending  both  the 
initiation  and  the  maintenance  of  dominion.  But 
the  connective  or  indicates  that  there  are  two  ideas 
which  are  to  be  distinguished  from  each  other. 
The  natural  distinction  to  be  made  between  as- 
suming dominion  and  exercising  dominion  is  that 
assuming  means  to  he  gin  and  exercising  means 
to  continue.  It  would  thus  seem  that  continuing 
to  exercise  dominion  is  as  explicitly  prohibited 
as  beginning  to  exercise  it;  that  the  prohibition 
applies  to  existing  as  well  as  to  impending  domin- 
ion; that  it  is  meant  to  be  present  or  immediate, 
not  merely  prospective,  in  its  operation.  Great 
Britain  held  thait  as  regards  occupation,  dominion, 

1  Travis. 

It  is  alleged  that  a  British  consul  or  agent  resides  in  Mosquito 
who  "may  oftentimes  be  called  upon  to  give  his  opinion  or  advice 
to  the  Mosquito  Government."  But  it  is  notorious  and  from  the 
degraded  character  of  the  Indians  it  cannot  be  otherwise,  that 
the  Mosquito  Government  is  exclusively  the  British  Government 
exercised  through  the  agency  of  this  Consul  residing  in  Mosquito. 
Is  is  through  him  that  the  British  Government,  in  the  name  of 
this  mere  shadow  of  a  king,  captured  the  seaports  of  his  neighbors 
by  the  employment  of  British  forces  alone,  and  exercises  domin- 
ion over  the  entire  so-called  Mosquito  Coast.  (Buchanan  to  Clar- 
endon, July  22,  1854.) 

97 


Chapter  IV 

fortification,  colonization,  etc.,  the  treaty  was 
prospective,  having  no  application  to  the  state  of 
affairs  existing  at  the  time  of  its  negotiation. 
She  would  not  admit  that  it  debarred  her  from 
such  military  operation  as  might  be  necessary  to 
preserve  the  status  quo.  The  United  States  per- 
sistently refused  to  recognize  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Mosquitos  and  insisted  on  the  actuality  and 
illegality  of  British  dominion  over  the  Mosquito 
country,  but  as  already  stated,  did  not  bring  Great 
Britain  to  agree  with  it  on  either  of  these  points. 
On  the  22nd  of  April,  1850,  three  days  after  the 
treaty  was  signed,  it  was  sent  by  President  Taylor 
to  the  Senate  for  approval.  Here  was  an  occa- 
sion for  the  President  to  state  that  it  would  cause 
the  withdrawal  of  Great  Britain  from  Central 
America,  but  he  did  not  make  that  statement ;  and 
the  guarded  language  which  he  used  indicated 
that  he  could  not  make  it.    He  said; 

...  I  found  Great  Britain  in  possession  of  nearly  half 
of  Central  America,  as  the  ally  and  protector  of  the  Mos- 
quito King.  It  has  been  my  object,  in  negotiating  this 
treaty,  not  only  to  secure  the  passage  across  the  isthmus 
.  .  .  but  to  maintain  the  independence  and  sovereignty 
of  all  Central  American  republics.  The  Senate  will 
judge  how  far  these  objects  have  been  effected. 

Three  years  later  our  Secretary  of  State  wrote 
to  the  President: 

.  .  .  the  relations  of  Great  Britain  to  Mosquito  and 

98 


The  British  Protectorate 

the  Mosquito  Indians,  over  whom  she  claims  to  have 
exercised  a  protectorate  for  a  long  course  of  years,  re- 
mains under  this  [Clayton-Bulwer]  treaty  somewhat  in- 
determinate.^ 

About  a  week  after  the  signing  of  the  treaty 
Sir  Henry  Bulwer  explained  in  a  dispatch  to  Pal- 
merston  the  difference  between  the  original  draft 
forwarded  on  the  3rd  of  February,  and  the  treaty 
as  signed.    He  said: 

As  the  case  now  stands  it  is  clearly  understood  that 
Her  Majesty's  Government  holds  by  its  own  opinions  al- 
ready expressed  as  to  Mosquito,  and  that  the  United 
States  does  not  depart  from  its  opinions  also  already  ex- 
pressed as  to  the  same  subject ;  but  the  main  question  of 
the  canal  being  settled  on  an  amicable  basis,  and  the 
future  relations  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
being  regulated  in  all  other  parts  of  Central  America, 
the  discussion  of  this  difference,  which  has  lost  its  great 
practical  importance,  is  avoided  in  an  arrangement 
meant  to  be  as  much  as  possible  of  a  friendly  char- 
acter.2 

The  British  representative  in  Central  America 
wrote  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of 
Nicaragua : 

This  [Clayton-Bulwer]  treaty  declares  that  North 
America  recognizes  the  existence  of  Mosquito,  acknowl- 
edging it  to  be  as  perfectly  distinct  a  state  or  country 

1  Everett  to   Fillmore,  Feb.    16,   1853. 

2  Bulwer   to   Palmerston,   April   28,    1850. 

99 


Chapter  IV 

with  respect  to  Nicaragua,  as  Costa  Rica  or  any  other 
portion  of  Central  America.^ 

Hardly  was  the  Cla;^i;on-Biilwer  Treaty  ratified 
when  trading  with  San  Juan  brought  the  United 
States  into  conflict  with  Great  Britain  over  the 
question  of  local  jurisdiction. 

On  the  21st  of  November,  1850,  the  American 
steamer  Prometheus^  with  many  passengers  on 
board,  was  fired  upon  while  going  out  of  the  port, 
by  the  British  brig-of-war  Express,  to  force  it  to 
pay  certain  port  charges  to  his  Mosquito  Majesty. 
The  British  Government  recognized  that  this 
was  going  beyond  the  function  of  protection ;  that 
it  was  exercising  dominion.  It  consequently  dis- 
avowed the  act.  But  this  did  not  prevent  a  re- 
currence of  friction  between  United  States  citi- 
zens and  the  Mosquito  authorities.  On  the  10th 
of  June,  1854,  the  place  was  bombarded  by  a 
United  States  war  vessel  and  reduced  to  ruins  as 
a  punishment  for  alleged  affronts  on  the  part  of 
the  San  Juan  populace  and  authorities  to  a  United 
States  minister.  This  ruthless  chastisement  was 
probably  intended  to  be  a  blow  at  the  prestige  of 
Great  Britain  as  the  protector  of  Mosquito  sov- 
ereignty. Such  a  motive  may  be  read  between  the 
lines  of  a  reference  to  ^^Greytown''  which  ^was 
made  by  President  Pierce  in  his  next  message  to 
Congress : 

1  Chatfield  to  Orosco,  Sept.  28,  1850. 

100 


The  BritisJi  Protectorate 

**It  was  in  fact  a  marauding  establishment,  too 
dangerous  to  be  disregarded  and  too  guilty  to  pass 
unpunished,  and  yet  incapable  of  being  treated  in 
another  way  than  as  a  piratical  resort  of  outlaws 
or  a  camp  of  savages  depredating  on  emigrant 
trains  or  caravans  and  the  frontier  settlements 
of  civilized  states." 

The  punishment  was  perhaps  unnecessarily  se- 
vere. It  brought  loss  and  suffering  upon  inno- 
cent people,  including  a  number  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  left  the  general  situation  un- 
changed. Great  Britain  did  not  relinquish  her 
control  of  the  Mosquito  Coast  until  1859,  when 
she  transferred  it  in  part  to  Honduras.  The  re- 
mainder, including  **Greytown  or  San  Juan  del 
Norte, '*  she  surrendered  to  Nicaragua  by  the 
Treaty  of  Managua  in  1860.  By  this  treaty  San 
Juan  was  regularly  constituted  and  declared  a 
free  port  under  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  Ee- 
public  of  Nicaragua.^ 

It  was  stipulated  that  a  district  within  the  ter- 
ritory ceded  to  Nicaragua  should  be  assigned  to 
the  Mosquito  Indians.  The  limits  of  this  reserva- 
tion were  defined  in  the  treaty  and  gave  it  an  area 
about  one-fourth  that  of  the  former  dominion  of 
the  nominal  King  of  the  Mosquitos  (Map  2). 

The  treaty  secured  to  the  Mosquitos  the  right 

I  For  text  of  this  treaty  and  the  one  with  Honduras  see  Sen. 
Bw.  Doc.  194,  47th  Cong.,  1st  Seas.,  pp.  148-154. 

101 


Chapter  IF 

of  self-government  under  the  sovereignty  of  Nica- 
ragua. It  required  the  latter  to  pay  to  the  Mos- 
quitos  50,000  dollars  in  the  course  of  ten  years 
and  prohibited  Nicaragua  from  ever  ceding  the 
Mosquito  district  'Ho  any  foreign  person  or 
State/'  The  treaty  with  Honduras  bound  that 
State  to  the  same  payment  as  Nicaragua.  The 
cession  was  thus  an  imperfect  one;  it  subjected 
Nicaragua  to  conditions  inconsistent  with  sover- 
eign control  and  possession  of  the  district.  It 
might  have  been  expected  that  failures  to  observe 
them  would  lead  to  intervention  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain  and  so  to  trouble  with  the  United 
States.  But  this  contingency  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  anticipated.  The  treaty  of  Managua 
was  considered  by  the  Government  and  people  of 
the  United  States  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
Mosquito  difficulty,  until  events  opened  their  eyes 
to  its  inefficacy.  Nineteen  years  after  its  conclu- 
sion Nicaragua  had  paid  but  $20,000  and  Hondu- 
ras but  $25,000  of  the  $50,000  which  each  State 
had  engaged  to  pay  within  ten  years.  It  does  not 
appear  that  any  more  of  this  sum  was  ever  paid. 
A  disagreement  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
Mosquitos  on  one  side,  and  Nicaragua  on  the 
other,  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty,  was 
referred  to  the  Emperor  of  Austria  for  arbitra- 
tion, and  decided  by  him  in  1881.  A  few  years 
later,  the  American  Secretary  of  State  wrote  to 
the  American  minister  at  London: 

102 


The  British  Protectorate 

To  this  agreement  of  arbitration  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  was  not  a  party,  and  it  is  not  bound 
by  the  award  of  the  arbitrator,  nor  committed  in  any 
way  to  an  admission  of  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to 
interfere  in  disputes  between  the  Kepublic  of  Nicaragua 
and  the  Indians  living  within  her  borders.  If  it  had 
been  supposed  by  the  United  States  that  the  Treaty  of 
Managua  was  understood  by  the  Government  of  Great 
Britain  to  give  that  country  a  right  of  influence,  direc- 
tion, or  control  over  the  destinies  of  the  ^Mosquito  terri- 
tory as  against  the  State  of  Nicaragua,  that  convention, 
far  from  being  hailed  by  this  government  as  a  solution 
and  termination  of  the  disputes  concerning  the  British 
protectorate  over  the  Mosquito  Indians,  would  have  been 
regarded  as  a  serious  obstacle  to  any  other  settlement.^ 

In  1894,  Great  Britain  again  intervened  between 
the  Mosquito  Indians  and  Nicaragua,  and  by  impli- 
cation invited  the  United  States  to  join  with  it  in 
settling  the  difference.  The  United  States  de- 
clined, suggesting  that  Nicaragua  and  her  Indians 
be  left  to  settle  their  differences  between  them- 
selves, and  remarked  that  the  United  States,  in  its 
dealings  with  that  part  of  America,  recognized 
and  would  recognize  no  government  but  that  of 
Nicaragua.^  As  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  the  Mosquito  question  was  prac- 
tically where  it  was  when  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  was  signed.  It  would  probably  have  led 
to  war  had  it  not  been  permanently  disposed  of  by 

1  Bayard  to  Phelps,  Xov.  23,  1888. 

2Gresham  to  Bayard,  April  30,  and  July  19,  1894. 

103 


Chapter  IV 

the  action  of  the  Mosquito  Indians  themselves. 
By  the  Treaty  of  Managua,  the  Mosquitos  were 
privileged  to  surrender  their  rights  as  a  separate 
people  and  be  merged  in  the  population  of  Nica- 
ragua, on  condition  of  their  submitting  to  the  laws 
and  constitution  of  that  State.  Availing  them- 
selves of  this  privilege,  they  applied  to  the  Nica- 
raguan  Government  for  incorporation  as  a  part  of 
the  republic.  Their  application  was  granted,  and 
their  district  was  accordingly  converted  into  the 
Province  of  Zelaya,  A  convention,  representing 
the  few  hundred  souls  that  were  left  of  the  Mos- 
quito people,  signalized  the  event  by  passing  the 
following  resolutions: 

Whereas  the  change  which  took  place  on  the  12th  of 
February  of  the  present  year  (1894)  was  due  to  the 
efforts  of  the  Nicaraguan  authorities  to  endeavor  to  free 
us  from  the  slavery  in  which  we  were: 

Whereas  we  have  agreed  wholly  to  submit  to  the  laws 
and  authorities  of  Nicaragua  for  the  purpose  of  form- 
ing part  of  their  political  and  administrative  organiza- 
tion: 

Whereas  the  lack  of  a  respectable  and  legitimate  gov- 
ernment is  always  the  cause  of  calamity  to  a  people,  in 
which  condition  we  have  been  for  a  long  time : 

Whereas  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  backward  condition 
in  which  we  live  doubtless  was  the  improper  use  of  the 
revenues  of  the  ^losquito  territory,  which  were  employed 
for  purposes  which  had  nothuig  to  do  with  good  ad- 
ministrative order: 


Article  1.    The  constitution  of  Nicaragua  and  its  laws 
104 


The  British  Protectorate 

shall  be  obeyed  by  the  Mosquito  people  who  shall  be  under 
the  protection  of  the  flag  of  the  Republic. 


The  projected  Nicaraguan  Canal,  for  reasons 
which  do  not  concern  us,  was  never  built,  nor  was 
the  construction  of  it  even  begun.  Until  the  ne- 
gotiation of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty  in  1901, 
the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  prevented  the  United 
States  from  acquiring  a  coaling  station  or  other 
dependency  in  Central  America,  while  not  remov- 
ing Great  Britain  from  her  positions  in  that  re- 
gion. This  was  not  neutralization.  The  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty  should  have  provided  for,  or 
permitted,  the  expansion  of  the  United  States  to 
something  like  an  equivalent  to  the  territory  held 
in  Central  America  by  Great  Britain.  As  it  was 
it  virtually  reversed  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  estab- 
lishing it  against  the  United  States  rather  than 
against  Europe.^  At  the  same  time  it  flew  in  the 
face  of  Washington's  advice  against  entangling 
alliances  with  European  nations.  It  would  be 
wrong,  however,  to  think  that  Great  Britain  had 
no  other  object  in  holding  on,  as  she  did,  to  the 
Mosquito  protectorate  than  to  thwart  the  United 
States.  This  mistake  was  at  the  bottom  of  Clay- 
ton's policy  of  disarming  Great  Britain's  protec- 
torate.   Finding  herself  debarred  by  the  treaty 

1  Buchanan  to  McClernand,  April  2,  1850  (Am.  Hist.  Rev., 
y.  99-101.) 

105 


Chapter  IF 

from  using  the  Mosquito  Coast  as  a  base  for  mili- 
tary aggression,  she  would  have  no  use  for  it  at 
all,  she  would  not  only  renounce  or  relinquish  her 
protectorate  over  it,  but  would  withdraw  from  it 
in  every  sense. 

In  diplomacy  as  in  war  it  is  hazardous  to  count 
on  an  opponent's  doing  what  one  wants  him  to  do ; 
to  base  a  plan  on  conjectures  as  to  his  attitude  or 
intentions.  Clayton's  diplomacy  failed  because 
he  misjudged  the  motives  of  the  British  cabinet. 
Great  Britain's  interest  in  the  Mosquitos  was  not 
all  imperial  selfishness.  There  was  in  it  an  ele- 
ment of  sympathy  for  a  helpless  race  exposed  to 
the  cruel  oppression  which  Spanish  conquerors 
and  their  descendants  visited  upon  aborigines, 
especially  on  those  who  refused,  as  the  Mosquitos 
did,  to  accept  the  Eoman  Catholic  faith.  It  in- 
cluded also  a  becoming  gratitude  to  those  people 
for  the  shelter,  assistance,  and  support  which  for 
over  two  hundred  years  they  had  afforded  to  Brit- 
ish buccaneers,  smugglers,  squatters,  and  invaders. 
In  1780  the  Mosquitos  allied  themselves  with  a 
British  expedition  up  the  San  Juan  Eiver,  in 
which  Horatio  Nelson,  the  future  admiral,  com- 
manded a  detachment  of  marines,  and  by  their  de- 
votion saved  it  from  perishing  to  a  man.  Such 
services  Great  Britain  felt  in  honor  bound  to  hold 
in  appreciative  remembrance.  Her  conduct  was 
actuated  by  the  three  motives  of  policy,  humanity, 

106 


The  British  Protectorate 

and  honor.    Clayton  reckoned  only  with  the  first. 
In  explanation  of  his  diplomacy  he  said  a  few 
years  later: 

Whenever  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  assert  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  either  branch  of  Congress  it  has 
failed.  .  .  .  The  reason  for  which  I  was  particularly 
anxious  to  make  the  [Clayton-Bulwer]  treaty  was  be- 
cause I  was  conscious  of  the  fact  that  Congress  would 
not  assert  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  that  we  must  either 
give  up  the  country  to  the  British  or  obtain  a  treaty 
binding  Great  Britain  to  abandon  it.  We  have  the 
treaty.^ 

If  we  had  not  had  the  treaty,  we  should  have 
given  np  the  country  to  the  British  in  the  same 
way  and  perhaps  to  no  greater  extent  than  we 
gave  it  up  having  the  treaty,  except  that  without 
the  treaty  we  should  have  been  free  to  take  some 
of  it  ourselves.  The  treaty  did  not  take  any  coun- 
try from  Great  Britain.  It  prevented  her  from 
taking  more  by  preventing  us  from  taking  any. 
It  asserted  the  Monroe  Doctrine  by  repudiating  it. 

The  question  whether  Great  Britain  violated  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  by  continuing,  after  its 
ratification,  to  maintain  her  quasi  protectorate 
over  the  Mosquito  Coast,  depends  as  already 
stated,  upon  whether  the  provisions  as  to  exer- 
cising dominion,  etc.,  were  purely  prospective  or 
both  present  and  prospective.    They  seem  to  have 

1  Senate  Speech,  Dec.  31,  1855. 

107 


Chapter  IV 

been  both  present  and  prospective,  but  on  tbis 
point  there  may  be  room  for  an  honest  doubt. 
Moreover,  it  is  only  just  to  Great  Britain  to  say 
that  she  offered  to  submit  the  question  to  arbitra- 
tion and  the  United  States  would  not  consent  to  it. 


108 


V 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Teeaty  (Conclitded) 
Belize,  or  British  Honduras.    The  Bay  Islands 

Belize,  or  British  Honduras 

The  country  now  known  as  British  Honduras 
was  discovered  by  Columbus  in  1502.^  The  first 
recorded  mention  of  a  settlement  at  the  place  now 
occupied  by  its  capital,  Belize,  was  made  in  1638, 
when  a  few  mariners  and  adventurers  established 
themselves  there.^  In  1696  a  horde  of  English 
pirates  took  possession  of  the  present  Island  of 
Carmen  in  the  Laguno  de  Terminos.  Though 
driven  from  it  by  the  Spaniards  in  1717,  they  re- 
tained a  foothold  on  the  coast  and  penetrated  to 
the  vicinity  of  the  Eio  Hondo.  The  rancheria 
which  they  formed  took  the  name  of  Walix  or 
Belice,  after  their  captain  whose  name  was  Wal- 
lace. They  were  dislodged  by  the  Spanish  gov- 
ernor in  1733  but  immediately  returned,  retook 
the  place,  and  remained  thus  established  upon 

^  An  account  of  the  British  Settlement  of  Honduras  by  Cap- 
tain  HendersoiL 
2  Bulletin  of  Am.  Geog.  8oc.,  XXXII,  No,  4,  1900,  p.  331  et  acq. 

109 


Chapter  V 

what  was  then  part  of  the  Spanish-American 
province  of  Mexico.^  The  British  settlement  of 
Belize  was  recognized  by  Spain  in  the  treaty  con- 
cluded with  Great  Britain  in  1763,  as  an  estab- 
lishment for  *^  cutting,  loading,  and  carrying  away 
logwood. '^  In  this  treaty  it  was  provided  that 
all  fortifications  which  British  subjects  might 
have  erected  **in  the  Bay  of  Honduras  and  other 
places  of  the  Territory  of  Spain  in  that  part  of 
the  world'*  should  be  demolished,  within  a  period 
of  four  months;  but  prescribed  no  limits,  either 
as  to  territory  or  as  to  governmental  power,  for 
the  settlements.  The  friction  and  controversy 
that  came  from  this  omission  it  was  sought  to  ob- 
viate by  the  treaty  of  1783.  In  this  pact  the  set- 
tlement was  defined  by  metes  and  bounds.  The 
northern  line  was  described  as  the  Eio  Hondo  and 
the  southern  as  the  Eio  Belize,  but  these  limits 
were  not  respected  by  the  settlers.  Rather  than 
fight  over  their  infraction,  Spain  agreed  to  their 
extension.  By  the  treaty  of  1786  the  settlement 
was  enlarged  by  expansion  southward  to  the  Rio 
Sibun,  the  boundary  between  Mexico  and  Guate- 
mala.^ The  occupation  of  the  settlers  was  given 
greater  scope.  From  cutting  wood  for  dyeing  it 
was  extended  to  '  ^  cutting  all  other  wood,  without 

1  Diccionario-ettciclopedico  hispano-amerioano  by  Montauer 
and   Simon. 

2  The  boundary  was  at  this  time  and  for  years  afterwards  un- 
defined, but  seems  to  have  been  eventually  defined  by  a  prepon- 
derance of  authority,  as  the  line  of  the  Sibuu, 

110 


British  Honduras 

erven  excepting  mahogany,  as  well  as  gathering 
all  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  pnrely  natural  and  un- 
cultivated.'' According  to  the  eighth  article  of 
the  treaty,  the  settlers  were  to  husband  the  wood 
so  as  to  make  the  supply  inexhaustible  or,  failing 
to  do  this,  they  were,  upon  its  exhaustion,  to  va- 
cate the  settlement  or  to  supply  themselves  by 
purchase  from  inhabitants  of  the  surrounding 
country.  The  treaty  prohibited  the  establish- 
ment of  plantations  or  factories  or  any  form  of 
government,  except  ^^such  regulations  as  their 
Britannic  and  Catholic  Majesties  might  see  fit  to 
establish  for  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  order 
among  their  respective  subjects.''  The  sover- 
eignty of  the  country  wa&  expressly  reserved  to 
Spain. 

By  1821,  when  the  Central  American  States 
achieved  their  independence,  the  settlers  in  the 
Belize,  having  failed  to  husband  the  wood  as  con- 
templated in  the  treaty  of  1786,  had  exhausted  the 
supply.  Instead  of  applying  for  a  new  grant  or 
vacating  the  settlement  or  supplying  themselves 
by  purchase  from  the  surrounding  country,  as  re- 
quired by  the  treaty,  they  spread  across  the  Sibun, 
establishing  themselves  and  plying  their  trade,  as 
far  south  as  the  Rio  Sarstoon  in  Guatemala. 

The  rights  of  Spain  in  Mexico  descended, 
through  the  revolution  of  that  dependency,  upon 
the  independent  State  which  Mexico  became.    In 

111 


Chapter  V 

1826  England  acquired  by  treaty  with  Mexico  the 
same  rights  from  that  republic  as  she  had  pre- 
viously acquired  from  Spain,  and  no  more.^  This 
treaty  (1826)  covered  her  Belize  settlement  from 
the  Eio  Hondo  to  the  Eio  Sibun;  in  other  words 
her  legitimate  settlement,  which  was  in  Mexico. 
It  did  not  affect  her  settlement  from  the  Sibun  to 
the  Sarstoon;  in  other  words  her  squatter  settle- 
ment, which  lay  in  Guatemala. 

On  the  14th  of  August,  1834,  the  Government  of 
Guatemala  granted  a  charter  to  a  British  corpo- 
ration: **The  Eastern  Coast  of  Central  America 
Commercial  and  Agricultural  Company,'^  for  the 
purpose  of  colonization.  The  land  assigned  to  it 
was  the  department  of  Vera  Paz,  part  of  which 
constituted  the  region  between  the  Sibun  and 
the  Sarstoon  invaded  by  the  settlers  from  Belize. 
When  the  authorities  of  Belize  learned  of  this 
grant  they  declared  that  this  region  was  within 
their  jurisdiction  as  their  property  and  they  re- 
fused to  give  any  of  it  up  to  the  claimants  under 
the  Guatemala  grant. 

1  J.  M.  Clayton,  Sen.  Speech,  Jan.  16,  1854.  About  two  years 
later  our  secretary  of  state  wrote  as  follows:  "It  is  the  indis- 
putable fact  that  England  possesses  no  other  treaty  rights  at 
the  Belize,  except  the  usufruct  conceded  by  Spain,  and  which  as 
late  as  the  year  1826,  the  British  government  deemed  it  impor- 
tant to  have  confirmed  by  England  [sie'\  by  the  Mexican  republic, 
as  the  presumed  sovereign  at  that  time,  of  the  country  in  which 
the  settlement  of  the  Belize  exists. 

"It  is  understood  that  Guatemala  contests  the  claim  of  the 
Mexican  republic  in  this  respect;  and  it  may  be  that  the  precise 
limits  of  the  two  republics  on  that  side  are  undetermined." 

112 


British  Honduras 

On  the  16th  of  September,  1834,  they  formally 
declared  the  coasts  and  lands  which  they  had  oc- 
cupied since  1821  to  be  within  their  jurisdiction 
and  the  following  November  sent  a  petition  to 
London  asking  that  the  settlement  be  declared  a 
regular  British  colony.^  The  British  company 
applied  to  the  home  government  for  information 
as  to  the  boundaries  claimed  by  it  for  the  Belize 
or  as  to  where,  in  the  Department  of  Vera  Paz,  the 
company  might  '^found  its  settlement  without 
touching  on  possessions  claimed  by  the  Crown  of 
Great  Britain.'^  ^  j^  ^^g  answered  in  the  follow- 
ing terms : 

DowNiN^G  Street,  23  November,  1836. 
I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to  acknowledge 
the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  17th  ultimo  on  behalf 
of  the  Eastern  Coast  of  Central  America  Company,  in- 
quiring "what  are  the  boundaries  claimed  by  His 
Majesty's  Government  for  British  Honduras  (or  Bel- 
ise)?"  and  I  am.  to  acquaint  you  in  answer  that  the 
territory  claimed  by  the  British  Crown  as  belonging  to 
the  British  settlements  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  extends 
from  the  River  Hondo  on  the  north  to  the  River  Sar- 
stoon  on  the  south,  and  as  far  west  as  Garbott's  Falls 
on  the  River  Belise,  and  a  line  on  the  same  parallel  to 
strike  on  the  River  Hondo  on  the  north  and  the  River 
Sarstoon  on  the  south.  The  British  Crown  claims  also 
the  w^aters,  islands  and  keys,  lying  between  the  coast, 

1  United  States  Docs.,  Ser.  No.  660,  Doc.  27,  p.  4.      (Sen.  Doc. 
27,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.  p.  7.) 

2  Leonard    S.    Coxe,    Secretary,    to    Lord   Glenelg,    Colon.    Off., 
Nov.  17,  1836. 

113 


Chapter  V 

above  defined,  and  the  meridian  of  the  easternmost  point 
of  Light-House  Reef. 

This  was  but  a  partial  concession  to  the  claims 
of  the  settlers.  It  gave  them  the  area  that  they 
coveted  and  seemed  to  make  them  owners  of  the 
territory,  but  it  made  no  pretention  to  sover- 
eignty. In  November,  1840,  a  new  superintend- 
ent, MacDonald,  proclaimed  the  law  of  England 
to  be  the  law  of  the  ' '  settlement  or  colony  of  Brit- 
ish Honduras''  and  sent  a  new  petition  to  the 
home  government  which  was  not  granted.  In 
1846  the  settlers  asked  that  goods  from  Belize  be 
admitted  at  British  ports  free  from  the  discrim- 
inating duty  charged  upon  foreign  goodsv  But 
the  Colonial  Office  replied  that  the  sovereignty  of 
Belize  territory  rested,  not  in  Grreat  Britain,  but 
in  Spain,  under  the  treaties  of  1783  and  1786.^ 
The  sovereignty  passed  to  Great  Britain  in  1859, 
when  in  a  treaty  with  Guatemala,  ^^the  boundary 
between  the  Republic  and  the  British  settlement 
and  possessions  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  as  they 
existed  previous  to  and  on  the  1st  day  of  January, 
1850,  and  have  continued  to  exist  up  to  the  present 
time"  is  described  as  extending  from  the  Mexican 
frontier  Hondo  River  on  the  north,  to  the  Sars- 
toon  River,  on  the  south.^    On  the  12th  of  May, 

1  Anglo-American  Isthmian  Diplomacy  by  M.  W.  Williams, 
p.  36. 

2  The  text  of  this  treaty  is  given  in  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  194,  47  Cong., 
1  Sess.,  p.  146. 

114 


British  Honduras 

1862,  British  Honduras,  with  the  boundary  de- 
fined in  this  treaty  ^^was  declared  to  be  a  colony, 
the  governor  of  which  was  to  be  the  governor  of 
Jamaica,  locally  represented  by  a  lieutenant-gov- 
ernor, who  took  the  place  of  superintendent/*  At 
the  end  of  1870,  in  answer  to  a  petition  by  the 
legislative  assembly,  the  principle  of  popular  rep- 
resentation was  abolished  and  British  Honduras 
became  a  crown  colony;  and  finally,  in  1884,  its 
connection  with  Jamaica,  which  had  for  sometime 
been  nominal,  was  completely  severed,  and  it  was 
given  a  governor  under  the  immediate  control  of 
the  colonial  office.^  By  these  acts  a  settlement 
under  the  sovereignty,  first  of  Spain  and  then  of 
an  American  republic,  and  numbering  about  2500 
square  miles,  was  converted  into  a  British  pos- 
session with  an  area  of  8600  square  miles,  a  little 
larger  than  that  of  Massachusetts  (Map  3). 
While  the  Kingdom  of  the  Mosquitos  was  dimin- 
ished by  its  transfer  as  a  district  to  Nicaragua, 
the  settlement  of  Belize  was  enlarged  by  its  es- 
tablishment and  incorporation  as  a  colony  in  the 
British  Empire. 

There  are  Americans  as  well  as  Britons,  learned 
in  so-called  international  law,  who  allege  that  the 
colonization  of  Belize  was  not  a  violation  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.     They  contend  that  the 

1  Historical  Geography  of  the  British  Colonies  by  C.  P.  Lucas, 
p.  309,   1890, 

115 


Chapter  V 

treaty  was  not  intended  to  apply  to  this  territory. 
How  was  it  understood  in  this  respect  by  the  con- 
tracting parties!  The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
was  approved  by  the  Senate  on  the  22nd  of  May, 
1850,  and  ratified  by  President  Taylor  on  the  fol- 
lowing day.  It  was  then  sent  to  England  for  rati- 
fication by  Queen  Victoria.  Apprehension  was 
excited  in  England  lest  British  Honduras  should 
be  embraced  in  the  treaty.  The  natural  and  sur- 
est way  to  guard  against  this  was  to  make  a  res- 
ervation to  the  contrary  in  the  ratification.  This 
was  not  done.  The  treaty  was  ratified  without 
reservation  on  the  11th  of  June,  1850,  but  a  res- 
ervation was  to  be  attached  to  the  final  act  of 
negotiation,  to  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications. 
On  the  28th  of  June,  Bulwer  was  informed  that 
the  President  had  ratified  the  treaty  and  that 
Clayton  was  prepared  to  exchange  the  ratifica- 
tions. On  the  following  day  he  conveyed  to  Clay- 
ton the  reservation  in  the  form  of  the  following 
declaration  in  writing : 

In  proceeding  to  the  exchange  of  ratifications  of 
the  convention  signed  at  Washington  on  the  19th  of 
April,  1850,  between  her  Britannic  Majesty  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  relative  to  the  establishment 
of  a  communication  by  ship  canal  between  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  Oceans,  the  undersigned,  her  Britannic 
Llajesty's  plenipotentiary,  has  received  her  Majesty's  in- 
structions to  declare  that  her  Majesty  does  not  under- 
stand the  engagements  to  that  convention  to  apply  to  her 

116 


British  Honduras 

Majesty's  settlement  at  Honduras  [British  Honduras] 
or  to  its  dependencies.  Her  Majesty's  ratification  of 
the  said  convention  is  exchanged  under  the  explicit  dec- 
laration above  mentioned. 

Done  at  Washington  the day  of ,  1850. 

H.   L.   BULWER. 

The  ratificatio-ns  were  not  exchanged  until  sev- 
eral days  after  this.  Belize  is  here  referred  to 
as  '  ^  Her  Majesty 's  settlement  at  Honduras. ' '  No 
pretention  is  made  to  its  being  under  British  sov- 
ereignty, *^its  dependencies'*  are  not  described 
nor  its  boundaries  specified.  This  declaration  had 
been  sent  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  from  London.  In 
the  letter  of  transmittal,  Lord  Palmerston  said : 

I  do  not  anticipate  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  will  raise  any  objection  to  receiving  and  assent- 
ing to  that  declaration,  but  if  they  should  decline  to  re- 
ceive and  assent  to  it,  you  will  not  proceed  to  the  ex- 
change of  the  ratifications  until  you  shall  receive  the 
further  instructions  of  her  Majesty's  Government.^ 

Mr.  Clayton  did  not  decline  to  receive  the  dec- 
laration, but  he  did  decline  to  assent  to  it.  Before 
taking  this  action  he  consulted  with  Senator  W. 
E.  King,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  foreign 
relations  of  the  Senate : 

Clayton  to  King,  July  4,  1850,  I  am  this  morning 
writing  to  Sir.  H.  L.  Bulwer,  and  while  about  to  decline 
altering  the  treaty  at  the  time  of  exchanging  ratifica- 

1  Palmerston  to  Bulwer,  June  14,  1850. 

117 


Chapter  V 

tions,  I  wish  to  leave  no  room  for  a  charge  of  duplicity 
against  our  government,  such  as  that  we  now  pretend 
that  Central  America  in  the  treaty  includes  British  Hon- 
duras. I  shall  therefore  say  to  him  in  effect  that  such 
construction  was  not  in  the  contemplation  of  the  nego- 
tiators or  the  Senate  at  the  time  of  the  confirmation. 
May  I  have  your  permission  to  add  that  the  true  under- 
standing was  explained  by  you  as  chairman  of  [the  com- 
mittee on]  foreign  relations,  to  the  Senate,  before  the 
vote  was  taken  on  the  treaty?  I  think  it  due  to  frank- 
ness  on  our  part. 

King  to  Clayton,  July  4,  1850.  The  Senate  perfectly 
understood  that  the  treaty  did  not  include  British  Hon- 
duras. Frankness  becomes  our  government,  but  you 
should  be  careful  not  to  use  any  expression  which  would 
seem  to  recognize  the  right  of  England  to  any  portion  of 
[British]  Honduras.^ 

On  the  strength  of  the  latter  commnnication  Mr. 
Clayton  addressed  to  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  the  fol- 
lowing counter-declaration : 

Department  op  State,  Washington, 

July  4,  1850. 
Sir: 

I  have  received  the  declaration  you  were  instructed  by 
your  government  to  make  to  me  respecting  Honduras  and 
its  dependencies,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  subjoined. 

The  language  of  Article  1  of  the  Convention  concluded 
on  the  19th  day  of  April  last,  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  describing  the  country  not  to  be  oc- 
cupied, etc.,  by  either  of  the  parties,  was  as  you  know, 
twice  approved  by  your  Government,  and  it  was  neither 

1  Daily  National  Intelligencer,  Jan.  8,  1853, 

118 


British  Honduras 

understood  by  them,  nor  by  either  of  us,  the  negotiators, 
to  include  the  British  settlement  in  Honduras  (com- 
monly called  British  Honduras,  as  distinct  from  the 
State  of  Honduras),  nor  the  small  islands  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  that  settlement,  which  are  known  as  its  de- 
pendencies.^ To  this  settlement  and  these  islands  the 
treaty  we  negotiated  was  not  intended  by  either  of  us 
to  apply.  The  title  to  them  it  is  now  and  has  been  my 
intention  throughout  the  whole  negotiation,  to  leave  as 
the  treaty  leaves  it,  without  denying,  affirming,  or  in 
any  way  meddling  with  the  same,  just  as  it  stood  pre- 
viously. 

The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  the  Senate,  the  Hon.  William  R.  King,  informs  me 
that  "the  Senate  perfectly  understood  that  the  treaty 
did  not  include  British  Honduras."  It  was  understood 
to  apply  to  and  does  include,  all  the  Central  American 
States  of  Guatemala,  Honduras,  San  Salvador,  Nica- 
ragua, and  Costa  Rica,  with  their  just  limits  and  proper 
dependencies.  The  difficulty  that  now  arises  seems  to 
spring  from  the  use  in  our  convention  of  the  term  ' '  Cen- 
tral America,"  which  we  adopted  because  Viscount  Pal- 
merston  had  assented  to  it  and  used  it  as  the  proper 
term,  we  naturally  supposing  that,  on  this  account,  it 
would  be  satisfactory  to  your  government;  but  if  your 
government  now  intends  to  delay  the  exchange  of  rati- 
fications until  we  shall  have  fixed  the  precise  limit  of 
Central  America,  we  must  defer  further  action  until  we 
have  further  information  on  both  sides,  to  which  at 
present  we  have  no  means  of  resort,  and  which  it  is  cer- 
tain we  could  not  obtain  before  the  term  fixed  for  ex- 

1  British  Honduras  was  never  included  in  the  state  of  Hon- 
duras ".  .  .  it  is  certain  that  the  appellation  of  'Honduras'  com- 
monly applied  in  England  to  the  settlement  of  the  Belize,  is  a 
misnomer,  originating  perhaps  in  local  projects  of  aggrandize- 
ment."  (Marcy  to  Dallas,  July  26,   1856). 

119 


Chapter  V 

changing  the  ratifications  would  expire.^  It  is  not  to 
be  imagined  that  such  is  the  object  of  your  govern- 
ment ;  for  not  only  would  this  cause  delay,  but  absolutely 
defeat  the  convention. 

Of  course  no  alteration  could  be  made  in  the  conven- 
tion, as  it  now  stands,  without  referring  the  same  to  the 
Senate;  and  I  do  not  understand  you  as  having  au- 
thority to  propose  any  alteration.  But  on  some  future 
occasion,  a  conventional  article,  clearly  stating  what  are 
the  limits  of  Central  America,  might  become  advisable.^ 

In  this  communication,  Mr.  Clayton  says  in  sub- 
stance that  the  treaty  does  not  apply  to  British 
Honduras,  and  that  it  does  apply  to  it,  if  that 
settlement  is  included  in  Central  America;  and 
tliat  the  question  as  to  how  much,  if  any,  of  it  is 
in  Central  America  is  to  be  left  unsettled  subject 
to  future  negotiation;  he  says,  in  other  words, 
that  the  treaty  does  not  apply  to  the  settlement 
in  question  and  that  it  may  apply  to  it.  He  recog- 
nizes the  settlement  as  a  fact,  but  does  not  recog- 
nize any  title  in  it.  For  all  he  says,  the  settlement 
may  be  wholly  a  trespass  on  one  or  more  Central 
American  States.  He  admits  that  it  is  outside  of 
the  treaty,  so  far  and  so  far  only,  as  it  is  outside 
of  Central  America.  The  sequel  to  the  foregoing 
correspondence  he  describes  in  the  following 
statements  which  he  endorsed  on  his  copy  of  the 
declaration  of  Sir  Henry  Bulwer: 

1  The  exchange  of  ratification  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 
was  to  take  place  within  six  months  of  the  date  of  signing,  or 
by  the   19th  of  October,   1850. 

2  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  12,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.,  pp.  2,  3. 

120 


British  Honduras 

Memorandum 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  July  5,  1850. 

The  within  declaration  of  Sir  H.  L.  Bulwer  was  re- 
ceived by  me  on  the  29th  day  of  June,  1850.  In  reply, 
I  wrote  to  him  my  note  of  the  4th  July,  acknowledging 
that  I  understood  British  Honduras  was  not  embraced 
in  the  treaty  of  the  19th  April  last,  but  at  the  same 
time,  carefully  declining  to  affirm  or  deny  the  British 
title  in  their  settlement  or  its  alleged  dependencies. 
After  signing  my  note  last  night,  I  delivered  it  to  Sir 
Henry,  and  we  immediately  proceeded,  without  any  fur- 
ther or  other  action,  to  exchange  the  ratifications  of  said 
treaty.  The  blank  in  the  declaration  was  never  filled 
up.^  The  consent  of  the  Senate  to  the  declaration  was 
not  required  ^  and  the  treaty  was  ratified  as  it  stood 
when  it  was  made. 

John  M.  Clayton. 

P.  S.  The  rights  of  no  Central  American  state  has 
been  compromised  by  the  treaty  or  by  any  part  of  the 
negotiation. 

Sir  Henry  understood,  when  he  and  Mr.  Clay- 
ton exchanged  ratifications,  that  the  treaty,  if  it 
did  not  include,  did  not  exclude,  the  settlement  of 

1  The  blanks  were  filled  up  subsequently,  to  read  "29th"  and 
"June." 

2  When  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  insisted  that  the  treaty  should 
include  what  he  said  were  certain  islands  and  dependencies  of 
Belize,  adjacent  to  Honduras  [Bay  Islands]  Mr,  Clayton  told 
him  substantially,  "If  you  are  not  satisfied  with  the  treaty  as 
it  is  and  with  such  explanations  as  we  haye  made  between  our- 
selyes,  I  must  submit  it  to  the  Senate  and  you  must  take  the 
consequences."  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  declined,  and  it  was  not  sent 
to  the  Senate  in  that  way.  ( Senator  Butler,  Cong.  Olobe,  Feb. 
20,  1856,  p.  469.) 

121 


Chapter  V 

British  Honduras  and  *^its  dependencies."  By 
exchanging  ratifications  under  this  condition  he 
violated  the  instructions  of  his  government.  It 
seems  probable  that  he  had  never  read  the  latter 
or  had  forgotten  them  until  he  came  to  prepare 
his  report.  However  this  may  be,  he  knew  that 
Clayton  could  not  be  made  to  accept,  as  received 
before  the  exchange  or,  for  that  matter,  after  it, 
any  communication  modifying  the  treaty  in  any 
respect.^  He  had  either  to  confess  his  fault  to  his 
government  or  to  conceal  it  by  falsifying  his  re- 
port. Confession  meant  the  ruin  of  his  career  as 
a  diplomat.  Falsification  was  a  forlorn  hope,  but 
might  save  him.  He  took  his  chances  on  the  lat- 
ter, and  on  the  5th  of  July  wrote,  under  date  of 
the  4th,  as  to  Mr.  Clayton : 

British  Legation, 

July  4th,  1850. 
Sir: 

I  understand  the  purport  of  your  answer  to  the  dec- 
laration dated  the  29th  of  June,  which  I  was  instructed 
to  make  to  you  on  behalf  of  her  Majesty's  Government, 
to  be  that  you  do  not  deem  yourself  called  upon  to  mark 
out  at  this  time  the  exact  limits  of  Her  Majesty's  settle- 
ment at  Honduras,  nor  of  the  different  Central  American 
States,  nor  to  define  what  are  or  what  are  not  the  de- 
pendencies of  the  said  settlement;  but  that  you  fully 

I I  also  denied  his  authority  or  power  even  to  propose  any 
alteration  [in  the  treaty] ;  and  he  made  no  attempt  to  assert 
that  he  had  such  a  power.  (J.  M.  Clayton,  Senate  speech,  Jan. 
12,  1854,  Append.,  Cong.  Globe,  XXXI,  91).  See  also  Clayton's 
counter-declaration,  July  4,  1850,  amte. 

122 


•   British  Honduras 

recognize  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of  our  negotiation 
to  embrace  in  the  treaty  of  the  19th  of  April,  whatever 
is  her  Majesty's  settlement  at  Honduras,  nor  whatever 
are  the  dependencies  of  that  settlement,  and  that  Her 
Majesty's  title  thereto  subsequent  to  the  said  treaty  will 
remain  just  as  it  was  prior  to  that  treaty,  without  under- 
going any  alteration  whatever  in  consequence  thereof. 

It  was  not  the  intention  of  Her  Majesty's  government 
to  make  the  declaration  I  submitted  to  you  more  than  a 
simple  affirmation  of  this  fact,  and  consequently,  I  deem 
myself  now  authorized  to  exchange  Her  Majesty's  ratifi- 
cation of  the  treaty  of  the  19th  April  for  that  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  .  .  . 

I  wait,  etc. 

H.  L.  BULWER.* 

Diplomatists  are  chary  of  expression.  They 
are  especially  backward  about  committing  them- 
selves to  writing.  This  formal  communication  of 
the  British  negotiator  would  not  have  been  made 
had  the  question  to  which  it  relates  been  settled 
before.  It  is  conclusive  evidence  that  Clayton's 
reply  to  the  British  declaration  was  not  satisfac- 
tory to  Bulwer ;  that  it  was  not  an  acquiescence  in 
Bulwer's  construction  of  the  treaty.  This  last 
word  from  Bulwer  shows  the  purpose  of  reading 
into  Clayton's  language  something  that  was  not 
there.  It  refers  to  *^Her  Majesty's  title"  to  Brit- 
ish Honduras  as  if  to  a  credential  the  scope  of 
which  might  be  uncertain,  but  the  validity  of 
which,  so  far  as  it  went,  was  unquestionable.    Mr. 

1  Index  and  Arch.,  Dept.  of  State. 

123 


Chapter  V 

Clayton  had  not  questioned  this  alleged  title,  but 
neither  had  he  given  it  any  recognition.  His  lan- 
guage indicates  that  neither  Mr.  King  nor  the 
Senate  recognized  any  British  title  in  British 
Honduras,  whether  within  or  without  Central 
America. 

Mr.  Clayton  had  clinched  the  matter  by  stating 
in  substance  that  no  other  meaning  than  the  one 
that  he  had  indicated  in  his  counter-declaration 
could  be  given  to  the  treaty  without  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Senate.  But  all  this  was  ignored  by 
her  Majesty's  plenipotentiary  and  has  been  ig- 
nored ever  since,  not  only  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment, but  also  by  American  historians.  Accord- 
ing to  both,  generally  speaking,  the  negotiators 
agreed  unreservedly  to  consider  the  provisions  re- 
garding occupation,  fortification,  dominion,  etc., 
as  not  applying  to  any  part  of  British  Honduras. 

To  return  to  the  narrative.  Having  miscon- 
strued Clayton's  language  so  as  to  give  to  the 
treaty  the  meaning  that  he  wanted  it  to  have,  Sir 
Henry  coolly  proposed  in  his  bogus  letter  of  the 
4th,  that  the  negotiations,  which  were  already  for- 
mally concluded,  be  brought  to  a  conclusion.  In 
some  way  that  is  past  finding  out,  this  communi- 
cation was  smuggled  into  the  archives  of  our  De- 
partment of  State  where  it  now  reposes.  It  does 
not  bear  the  usual  office  mark  or  any  other  nota- 
tion giving  date  of  receipt.    A  copy  of  it  was 

124 


British  Honduras 

forwarded  by  its  writer  to  the  British  foreign  of- 
fice, where  of  course  it  gave  the  false  impression 
that  it  was  part  of  the  understanding  on  which  the 
treaty  was  based.^  If  it  was  ever  seen  by  Mr. 
Clayton,  it  was  only  years  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  treaty. 

The  spurious  document  was  alluded  to  in  an 
extract-memorandum  of  Sir  Henry  Bulwer's  which 
he  sent  privately  to  Daniel  Webster  on  the  17th 
of  August,  1850,  Webster  having  succeeded  Clay- 
ton as  Secretary  of  State.  After  referring  to 
Bulwer's  declaration  and  Clayton's  counter-dec- 
laration, he  says : 

Sir  H.  Bulwer's  answer  states  what  the  intentions  of 
H.  M.'s  Gov.  really  were  and  accepts  Mr.  Clayton's  as- 
sent to  the  declaration  he  [Bulwer]  was  instructed  to 
make,  as  satisfactory  .^ 

It  was  reproduced  in  full  by  Sir  Henry  Bulwer 

1  Letter   of  transmittal: 

Bulwer  to  Palmerston 

Washington,  July  8,   1850. 
My  Lord: 

1  have  the  honor  to  enclose  to  your  Lordship  the  correspon- 
dence which  passed  between  Mr.  Clayton  and  me,  after  delivering 
the  declaration  inclosed  in  your  Lordship's  despatch  of  the  8th 
ultimo,  respecting  Her  Majesty's  settlement  at  Honduras  and 
its  dependencies. 

Your  Lordship  will  perceive  that  the  Secretary  of  State  fully 
assents  to  the  fact  that  the  rights  of  her  Majesty  over  the  British 
settlement  at  Honduras  and  its  dependencies  remain  untouched 
by  the  convention  of  the  19th  April.  .  .  . 

2  Index  and  Arch.,  Dept.  of  State. 

125 


Chapter  V 

in  an  article  which  he  contributed  in  1856  to  the 
Edinburgh  Review.^  It  appeared  also  the  same 
year  in  an  article  published  in  the  Quarterly  Re- 
view 2  which  was  attributed  to  Bulwer.  In  these 
papers  one  reads : 

It  was  on  this  note  of  Sir  H.  Bulwer  and  not  on  the 
preceding  note  of  Mr.  Clayton,  that  the  subject  closed. — 
{Edinburgh  Review.) 

On  these  words  [of  Sir  Henry  Bulwer]  without  a 
single  demur,  Mr.  Clayton  exchanges  the  ratifications 
with  Sir  Henry  Bulwer  and  on  this  last  letter  [Sir 
Henry's] — not  on  the  previous  one  [Clayton's]  with  its 
verbal  qualification — is  the  treaty  thus  based,  signed 
and  completed. —  {Quarterly  Review.) 

Let  us  recall  here  what  Clayton,  in  his  endorse- 
ment on  Sir  Henry's  original  declaration,  said 
with  reference  to  his  own  counter-declaration: 
**I  delivered  it  to  Sir  Henry,  and  we  immediately 
proceeded  without  any  further  action  to  exchange 
the  ratifications  of  said  treaty. ' '  If  corroboration 
of  this  positive  and  explicit  statement  be  neces- 
sary, it  may  be  got  from  the  following  letters, 
which  so  far  as  known,  have  never  before  been 
published : 

Clayton  to  Marcy,  May  28,  1856 

*^  .  .  IMy  attention  has  been  arrested  by  a  doc- 
ument published  on  the  64th  page  [of  British  Blue 

iVol.  CIV,  p.  267. 

2 Vol.  XCIX.     The  Disputes  uith  America. 

126 


British  Honduras 

Book  'laid  before  Parliament  recently']  ^  pur- 
porting to  be  a  letter  addressed  to  me  by  Sir 
Henry  L.  Bulwer  dated  'July  4,  1850.' 

' '  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  inform  you  without  delay 
that  no  such  letter  was  ever  received  by  me  from 
him.  It  purports  to  be  a  reply  to  my  counter- 
declaration  or  letter  to  him  of  the  same  date.  I 
do  not  stop  to  consider  whether  it  could  be  of  any 
effect  to  change  the  spirit  or  meaning  of  my  reply 
to  him  of  that  date,  but  I  assert  with  perfect  con- 
fidence that  from  my  own  knowledge  no  such 
letter  was  ever  received  by  me  from  him.  I  know 
that  he  was  distinctly  informed  when  the  ratifica- 
tions of  the  treaty  of  the  19th  of  April,  1850,  were 
exchanged,  that  he  could  not  be  permitted  to  reply 
to  my  counter-declaration,  and  that  I  would  not 
exchange,  if  he  attempted  it. 

**It  is  not  possible  that  I  can  be  deceived  or 
mistaken  on  this  subject.  The  memory  of  the 
facts  is  as  fresh  in  my  mind  as  it  was  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  5th  of  July,  immediately  after  the  ex- 
change ...  I  never  can  forget  my  fixed  and  un- 
alterable purpose  at  that  time  to  exchange  on  no 
letter  he  could  write  in  reply  to  mine  of  the  4th 
of  July  to  him. 

''The  exchange  of  the  ratification  occupied  us  on 
the  day  (4th  of  July,  1850)  and  nearly  all  night 
after  it.    It  took  place  in  fact  about  the  break  of 

^  Accounts  and  Papers,  State  Papers,  LX. 

127 


Chapter  V 

day  of  the  5  th  of  July.  Our  difficulty  came  in  the 
adjustment  of  my  counter-declaration  in  reply  to 
his  declaration.  We  disputed  about  its  phrase- 
ology. It  is  well  known  to  others  that,  when  in- 
formed that  the  British  declaration  was  to  be 
made  before  the  exchange,  I  refused  to  exchange 
at  all  until  he  agreed  to  receive  my  reply  which 
effectually  obviated  the  objections,  otherwise  in- 
superable, which  were  entertained  on  the  part  of 
our  government.  Of  this  the  public  has  been  long 
fully  apprised  by  the  letter  of  the  Hon.  Eeverdy 
Johnson,  attorney-general  of  the  United  States  at 
the  time  of  the  exchange,  which  letter  is  filed  and 
published  among  the  documents  of  the  Senate.^ 
**The  only  person  present  during  the  exchange 

1  Eeverdy  Johnson  to  Clayton,  December  30,  1853. 

"...  I  assisted,  by  your  request,  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
phraseology  of  the  counter-declaration,  dated  the  fourth  day  of 
July,  1850,  to  Sir  Henry  L.  Bulwer's  declaration  of  the  29th  of 
June.  .  .  .  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  on  that  counter- 
declaration  was,  on  the  part  of  the  British  minister,  a  complete 
waiver  of  every  objection  that  could  be  taken  to  any  statement 
contained  in  it. 

"In  point  of  law,  the  declarations  of  the  negotiators,  not  sub- 
mitted to  the  Senate,  were  of  no  validity  and  could  not  affect  the 
treaty.  Both  understood  that.  This  government  had  decided  that 
question  in  the  case  of  the  Mexican  protocol,  and  the  British 
Government  was  informed  of  their  decision.  The  very  power  to 
exchange  ratifications  gave  them  the  same  information,  and  it 
is  impossible  that  the  British  minister  could  have  been  deceived 
on  that  subject."      {Append.  Cong.  Globe,  Jan.  28,  1856,  p.  75). 

For  the  full  powers  of  the  plenipotentiaries,  see  Appendix  D. 
That  of  Mr.  Clayton  was  ''to  conclude  and  sign  a  convention 
touching  the  premises,  for  my  [President  Taylor's!  ratification, 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
if  such  advice  and  consent  be  given." 

128 


British  Honduras 

was  the  Librarian  of  the  State  Department,  now 
the  attorney-general  of  the  State  of  Delaware, 
George  P.  Fisher,  Esquire — the  same  gentleman 
who  was  appointed  by  the  President  commissioner 
to  settle  and  adjust  the  claims  on  Brazil.  Mr. 
Fisher  is  a  man  of  high  standing  and  unquestioned 
character  as  for  morality  and  honor.  He  was 
present  during  the  whole  interview  with  Sir 
Henry  when  the  exchange  took  place  and  received 
the  treaty  and  all  the  correspondence  at  the  time 
and  filed  it  by  my  orders  in  the  State  Department. 
He  cannot  fail  to  recollect  a  fact  so  important  as 
that  no  such  letter  as  Sir  Henry's  of  the  4th  of 
July  was  received  by  me  before  the  exchange.  I 
have  written  to  him  at  New  Castle  [Delaware], 
where  he  is  now  engaged  in  the  public  prosecu- 
tions, to  give  you  the  information  on  this  subject, 
which  I  know  he  must  be  possessed  of. 

'^It  will  be  observed  that  Sir  Henry's  declara- 
tion is,  for  some  reason  unknown  to  me,  omitted 
from  the  [British]  Blue  Book.^  A  copy  of  the 
draft  of  a  declaration  appears  on  the  60th  page. 
It  is  well  known  that  I  refused  to  accept  this  dec- 
laration without  replying  to  it;  and  I  could  not 
have  permitted  him  to  reaffirm  it  again,  as  is  sub- 
stantially done  by  his  alleged  letter  of  4th  July, 
1850. 

1  It  is  published  in  Brit,  atid  For.  State  Papers,  XLII,  162,  163 
(1864). 

129 


Chapter  V 

**0n  the  3rd  of  January,  1853,  the  whole  of  the 
correspondence  [was]  transmitted  to  the  Senate 
by  Mr.  Everett  in  a  reply  to  a  resolution  of  the 
Senate.  He  sent  the  correspondence,  of  which  at 
that  time  it  thus  appears  this  letter  teas  not  a  part. 
No  such  letter  was  then  on  the  files.  If  it  had 
been,  it  must  have  been  sent  to  the  Senate.^  Af- 
terwards, by  some  means  unknown  to  me  or  to  the 
clerk  who  has  had  charge  of  these  papers,  this 
letter  was  placed  among  the  papers  and  now,  I 
hear,  is  to  be  found  on  file. 

*  ^  The  report  of  Mr.  Everett  containing  the  dec- 
larations on  both  sides,  with  my  memorandum  in- 
dorsed on  the  declaration  of  the  British  minister 
in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Fisher  and  signed  by 
me,  was  published  in  January,  1853 — has  been 
published  again  and  again  in  the  public  papers  of 
this  country  as  well  as  in  Great  Britain,  has  been 
often  commented  upon  by  myself  and  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  and  by  Lord  Clarendon  and 
Mr.  Buchanan,  without  any  [sic]  the  slightest  ref- 
erence to  or  seeming  knowledge  of,  this  letter.  I 
have  no  doubt  it  has  been  fraudulently  filed  in 
the  Department  of  State  since  the  correspondence 
was  sent  to  the  Senate  [1853].    In  some  comments 

1  This  reasoning  is  not  conclusive.  Whoever  was  responsible 
for  its  admission  to  the  files  was  perhaps  capable  of  concealing 
it  there.  It  is  now  in  its  proper  chronological  place  in  a  sub- 
stantially bound  volume,  and  has  apparently  been  there  since  the 
volume  was  originally  bound.  When  this  took  place  I  have  been 
unable  to  learn,  but  it  was  in  all  probability  before  1853. 

130 


British  Honduras 

of  mine  it  clearly  appears  that  I  always  believed 
my  o^vTi  memorandum  correct,  made  at  the  time, 
which  substantially  denies  the  existence  of  such 
a  letter,  appears  [sic]  by  the  following  extracts 
from  speeches  made  by  me  in  the  Senate.''  ^ 

G.  P.  Fisher  to  Clayton 
Washington,  May  21, 1856 

''In  compliance  with  your  wish  expressed  last 
evening  at  your  lodging,  I  proceed  to  give  you  in 
writing  my  recollection  of  what  transpired  at  your 
residence  on  the  night  of  July  4th  and  on  the 
morning  of  July  5th,  1850,  in  regard  to  the  ex- 
change of  ratifications,  between  yourself  and  Sir 
Henry  Bulwer  (the  British  negotiator),  of  the 
treaty  of  the  19th  of  April,  1850. 

''I  well  remember  the  protracted  conference 
that  took  place  between  you  and  Sir  Henry  on  that 
occasion.  He  had,  some  days  before,  desired  you 
to  accept  the  declaration  which  is  published  on 
page  118  of  the  pamphlet  containing  the  corres- 
pondence between  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Lord  Clar- 
endon (a  copy  of  which  was  kindly  forwarded  to 
me  in  February  last  by  Doctor  Mackie  of  the  De- 
partment of  State),  but  which  I  think  you  refused 
to  accept  as  a  state  paper,  though  in  fact  it  was 

1  Clayton  Papers,  Library  of  Cong.  XI,  2199.  The  memoran- 
dum referred  to  is  the  one  endorsed  on  the  British  Declaration, 
July  5,  1850. 

131 


Chapter  V 

received  at  the  Department — until  you  had  pre- 
pared the  counter-declaration  on  the  evening  of  the 
4th  of  July  previous  to  Sir  Henry's  visit.  This 
counter-declaration,  as  stated  in  the  memorandum, 
also  published  on  page  118  of  the  same  document, 
was,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  given  to  Sir 
Henry  on  the  evening  of  the  exchange  of  ratifi- 
cations. A  long  discussion  ensued  between  you 
respecting  the  propriety  of  his  making  and  your 
receiving,  another  note  from  him  in  reply  to  your 
counter-declaration;  but  I  saw  none  and  I  knew 
of  no  other  at  that  time.  On  the  morning  of  the 
5th  I  endorsed  the  memorandum  above  mentioned, 
on  the  declaration  submitted  by  Sir  Henry.  There 
was  then  no  such  paper  as  a  rejoinder  by  him  to 
your  counter-declaration  among  the  papers  con- 
nected with  the  treaty;  otherwise  I  am  sure  you 
never  would  have  told  me  to  endorse  on  Sir 
Henry's  declaration  the  memorandum  which  was 
dictated  by  you  and  written  by  me  on  the  morning 
of  the  5th,  immediately  after  Sir  Henry's  depar- 
ture from  your  house ;  and  I  hope,  my  dear  Sir,  you 
know  me  well  enough  to  believe  that  I  never  would 
have  consented  to  pen  that  memorandum,  had  any 
such  paper,  to  my  knowledge,  been  in  existence. 
The  words  used  in  the  memorandum  are :  *^  After 
signing  my  note  last  night  I  delivered  it  to  Sir 
Henry  and  we  immediately  proceeded  without  any 
further  or  other  action  to  exchange  the  ratifica- 

132 


'British  Honduras 

tions  of  said  treaty."  How  could  you  possibly 
have  made  that  statement  within  a  few  minutes 
after  he  had  delivered  you  a  letter  which  proved 
that  you  did  not  immediately  proceed  without  any 
further  or  other  action  to  exchange?  If  you  dic- 
tated that  memorandum  whilst  you  had  such  a 
letter  from  Sir  Henry,  you  deliberately  put  on 
record  proof  which  could  not  fail  to  convict  you 
at  some  future  period  of  deliberate  falsehood; 
and  I,  who  recorded  the  statement  at  your  request, 
if  I  had  possessed  any  knowledge  of  such  a  paper, 
did  an  act  which  was  certain  also  in  after  time  to 
convict  me  of  a  participation  in  the  guilt.  What 
motive  could  possibly  have  influenced  us  or  either 
of  us,  to  have  been  so  wicked  or  so  unwise?  I 
confess  I  was  not  a  little  surprised  when  I  saw  in 
the  British  Blue  Book  such  a  paper  purporting 
to  have  been  addressed  by  Sir  Henry  to  you  in 
reply  to  your  counter-declaration,  prior  to  the  ex- 
change of  ratifications,  and  the  more  so  since  I 
have  never  seen  such  a  paper  in  any  document 
published  by  our  Government  on  the  Central  Ame- 
rican question  or  in  any  newspaper  published  in 
this  country  or  in  Great  Britain.  While  I  was  in 
the  Department  of  State  I  acted  as  your  confiden- 
tial clerk.  I  believe  you  withheld  nothing  from 
me,  but  gave  me  your  entire  confidence  respecting 
all  matters  of  diplomacy.  I  was  with  you  day  and 
night  whilst  you  were  negotiating  this  convention 

133 


Chapter  V 

— sometimes  from  early  breakfast  till  after  mid- 
night— you  seemed  certainly  to  unbosom  to  me 
every  difficulty  and  every  anxious  thought  con- 
cerning it  in  every  stage  of  its  negotiation ;  and  I 
feel  sure  you  would  not  have  intentionally  con- 
cealed from  me  any  paper  relating  to  it;  and  un- 
less you  had  done  so,  I  must  have  seen  this  re- 
joinder to  your  counter-declaration,  had  it  then 
existed,  for  I  had  free  access  at  all  times,  in  your 
absence  as  well  as  in  your  presence,  to  all  your 
papers  pertaining  to  State  affairs.  I  am  there- 
fore right  confident  that  no  such  paper  could  have 
been  received  by  you. 

^*When  Mr.  Everett  communicated  these  papers 
to  the  Senate,  January  3,  1853,  he  communicated 
only  the  declaration  and  your  counter-declaration. 
(See  Senate  Executive  Documents,  No.  12,  Thirty- 
second  Congress,  Second  Session.)  ^  If  the  pre- 
tended letter  of  Sir  Henry  was  then  in  the  Depart- 
ment, it  must  seem  rather  strange  that  the  clerk 
who  had  charge  of  the  correspondence  with  the 
British  Legation  should  have  overlooked  it  when 
complying  with  the  Senate 's  resolution  calling  for 
those  papers. 

**I  ought  perhaps  further  to  observe  that  when 
I  took  the  declaration  and  counter-declaration 
from  your  residence  to  the  Department  of  State 
on  the  morning  of  July  5th,  the  memorandum  en- 

1  Published  in  Brit,  and  For.  State  Papers,  XLII,  160  et  seq. 
(1864). 

134 


British  Honduras 

dorsed  in  my  handwriting  and  signed  by  you  con- 
tained some  words  which  do  not  appear  in  the 
published  copy.  I  think  you  will  find  on  inspec- 
tion of  the  original  memorandum  at  the  Depart- 
ment that  immediately  preceding  the  closing  sen- 
tence these  words  occur,  viz :  ''  The  blank  in  the 
declaration  was  never  filled  up''  or  words  sub- 
stantially the  same.^  By  that  expression  was 
meant  that  the  date  of  the  declaration  had  not 
been  inserted  when  it  was  received ;  that  sentence 
has  evidently  been  omitted  since  the  declaration 
was  delivered  by  me  in  the  Department.  Why 
it  has  been  so  omitted  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conjecture. 
But  it  would  seem  that  since  its  delivery,  a  date 
has  been  inserted  in  the  declaration  of  Sir  Henry 
and  that  a  different  date  from  the  true  one,  which 
should  have  been  the  4th  day  of  July,  1850.2 

1  The  words  quoted  appear  in  the  original  memorandum  on  file 
in  the  State  Department.  They  are  stricken  out  in  pencil,  but 
perfectly  legible. 

2  The  date  as  originally  inserted,  may  have  been  the  4th  of  July, 
1850.  The  words  "29"  and  "June'*  appear  to  have  been  substi- 
tuted for  words  erased.  Clayton  states  in  his  Memorandum  al- 
ready quoted,  that  he  received  the  Declaration  on  the  29th  of 
June.  It  bears  the  office  mark:  "Rec'd  29th  June,  1850,  at  Dept. 
State."  In  the  copy  transcribed  in  the  Letters  Sent  Book  of 
the  State  Department,  it  bears  the  date  "29th  day  of  June,  1850" 
with  every  appearance  of  having  been  entered  with  the  rest  of 
the  transcription.  In  the  transcription  of  Clayton's  Memorandum, 
made  in  the  same  book,  the  sentence,  "The  blank  in  the  declara- 
tion was  never  filled  up,"  does  not  appear.  It  could  not  have 
been  included  and  erased.  These  circumstances  show  that  the 
date,  "29th"  day  of  "June,"  was  inserted  in  the  declaration  be- 
tween the  oth  of  July  and  the  date  on  which  these  transcriptions 
were  made.     This  date,  however,  cannot  be  determined. 

135 


Chapter  V 

'*It  is  always  difficult,  you  know,  to  prove  a 
negative,  but  in  this  case  the  importance  of  the 
subject  demands  a  rigid  scrutiny  as  to  the  time 
when  the  declaration  of  Sir  Henry  was  received 
at  the  Department.  The  British  declaration  as 
signed  by  Sir  Henry  is  not  inserted  in  the  British 
Blue  Book,  though  the  form  or  draft  of  it  is  there. 
In  your  counter-declaration  you  say  that  '  *  a  copy 
of  it  is  hereto  subjoined''  and  we  accordingly  find 
it  subjoined  to  your  letter  of  the  4th  of  July.^ 

*^The  words  as  set  forth  in  the  Blue  Book  on 
page  63  are  ^a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  sub- 
joined,' but  the  copy  does  not  therein  appear. 
Heretuith  might  have  been  consistent  with  the  sup- 
pression of  the  copy,  but  hereto  could  not. 

**0n  this  subject,  I  find  by  referring  to  your 
speeches  in  January,  1854,  and  on  the  17th  and  19th 
of  March,  1856,  a  period  anterior  to  the  arrival 
of  the  Blue  Book  in  this  country,  that  in  speaking 
of  these  declarations,  you  always  say  that  the  ex- 
change of  ratifictions  took  place  immediately  after 
your  counter-declaration  of  the  4th  of  July,  1850.^ 

1  Archives  of  the  Department  of  State.  The  parts  indicated  by- 
italics  in  the  following  extract  are  apparently  substituted  for 
parts  erased. 

British  Legation, 
July  Jf,    1850 
"Sir: 

1  understand  the  purport  of  your  answer  to  the  declaration 
dated  the  29th  June,  which  I  was  instructed  to  make  to  you  in 
behalf  of  Her  Majesty's  government  to  he:  that  you  .  .  . 

2  See  also  Bpeech  of  March  8,  1853. 

136 


British  Honduras 

**This  was  manifestly  the  impression  fixed  upon 
your  mind  whenever  you  expressed  yourself  about 
it  after  the  exchange  took  place,  and  it  is  remark- 
able that  Mr.  Johnson  in  his  last  letter  of  Decem- 
ber, 30,  1853,  appended  to  the  Senate's  Executive 
Document  No.  13,  Thirty-third  Congress,  First 
Session,  uses  these  words,  showing  distinctly  his 
impression  to  have  been  the  same  as  your  own. 
Eather  it  is  not  a  mere  impression,  for  he  states 
it  as  a  positive  fact  that  when  Sir  Henry  consented 
to  receive  your  counter-declaration  of  the  4th  of 
July,  you  then  consented  to  exchange  upon  that 
counter-declaration.  Mr.  Johnson,  I  am  sure, 
must  have  been  familiar  with  the  fact,  as  he  him- 
self states  that  he  assisted  you  in  drafting  your 
counter-declaration,  after  you  had  determined  to 
break  off  the  negotiation,  as  I  know  you  at  one 
time  did,  after  Sir  Henry's  insisting  upon  making 
the  declaration. 

**But,  my  dear  Sir,  will  you  not  permit  me  to 
suggest,  that  no  matter  what  may  have  been  the 
purpose  of  those  who  have  inserted  this  pretended 
letter  of  Sir  Henry  among  the  papers  in  the  State 
Department,  if  it  should  turn  out  to  be  found 
there,  after  I  had,  by  your  direction  filed  the  gen- 
uine papers  there,  your  counter-declaration  still 
completely  annuls  the  effect  and  defeats  the  in- 
tention of  those  who  have  interpolated  this  docu- 
ment among  the  records  pertaining  to  this  nego- 

137 


Chapter  V 

tiation.  In  your  counter-declaration  you  not  only 
say  what  the  dependencies  of  Belize  are,  but  you 
expressly  state  that  the  treaty  *does  include  all 
the  American  States  with  their  just  limits  and 
proper  dependencies'  and  you  go  still  further  and 
inform  Sir  Henry  that  'no  alteration  could  be 
made  in  the  convention  without  referring  the  same 
to  the  Senate,'  by  any  declaration  which  he  had 
made  or  could  make.  However  important  there- 
fore it  may  be  to  detect  fraud,  yet  so  far  as  re- 
gards the  treaty,  it  remains  intact  and  must  be 
construed  by  its  own  provisions  and  not  by  any 
declaration  of  the  negotiators.^    ..." 

As  late  as  December  30,  1882,  Sir  Henry's  pre- 
tended answer  to  Clayton  was  embodied  by  Lord 
Granville,  in  an  '* instruction"  to  the  British  min- 
ister at  Washington,  as  bearing  on  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  A  copy  of 
this  communication  of  Lord  Granville's  was  fur- 
nished to  our  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Freling- 
huysen,  but  so  far  as  can  be  learned,  no  exception 
was  taken  to  it,  and  the  fraudulence  of  the  Bulwer 
paper  was  never  exposed.  For  more  than  sixty 
years  it  has  been  misleading  students  of  history 
by  appearing  without  remark  in  a  standard  com- 
pilation of  the  treaties  of  all  nations.^ 

1  Clayton  Papeis,  Library  of  Cong.,  XI,  2201. 

2Recueil  general  de  Traitis,  etc.,  by  de  Martens,  XV,  194. 

138 


British  Honduras 

The  mutual  declarations  of  the  plenipotentiaries 
at  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  did  not  and 
could  not  in  any  way  alter  the  terms  or  provisions 
of  the  treaty.  These  included,  after  that  act  as 
they  did  before,  a  prohibition  against  the  establish- 
ment of  a  colony  by  either  of  the  contracting  par- 
ties in  any  part  of  Central  America.  According 
to  Clayton,  the  term  ^* Central  America^'  was 
adopted  by  Sir  Henry  and  himself  **  because  Vis- 
count Palmerston  had  assented  to  it  and  used  it 
as  the  proper  term.  ^ '  ^  The  first  instance  that  I 
find  of  its  use  in  the  negotiations  is  in  a  letter 
from  Lawrence  to  Palmerston  of  November  8th, 
1849.2  It  had  been  used,  however,  by  Palmerston 
and  Clayton  before  this.^ 

The  President's  understanding  of  the  term  was 
substantially  that  expressed  by  Clayton  in  his 
counter-declaration  to  Bulwer,  as  meaning  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  late  Confederate  States  **with  their 
just  limits  and  proper  dependencies,"  including 
so  much  of  British  Honduras  as  lay  within  those 
limits,  and  excluding  all  that  lay  without  them.^ 

1  Clayton  to  Bulwer,  July  4,  1850. 

2  Appendix  C. 

sFor  instance,  Palmerston  to  Castellon,  minister  of  Nicaragua, 
April  26,  1849,  and  Clayton  to  Squire,  May  1,  1849. 

4  I  most  certainly  would  bear  testimony  "that  the  whole  sub- 
ject was  referred  to  the  President  and  perfectly  understood  by 
every  cabinet  minister  as  well  as  by  the  President  himself,"  and 
until  the  charge  was  made  against  you  in  the  Senate  on  the  6th 
[of]  January,  which  you  have  now  so  triumphantly  met,  I  could 

139 


Chapter  V 

At  this  time  the  federation  had  been  a  thing  of 
the  past  for  about  ten  years.  To  exclude  British 
Honduras  from  Central  America  it  was  necessary 
to  take  this  term  in  an  obsolete  sense.  That  such 
use  of  it  was  intended  to  mislead  cannot  be  proved 
and  is  therefore  not  to  be  asserted  or  insinuated, 
but  that  it  did  mislead  and,  by  so  doing,  was  an 
important  factor  in  securing  for  the  treaty  the 
vote  which  it  received  in  the  Senate,  may  be  ac- 
cepted as  an  established  fact. 

The  just  limits  of  the  federation  of  Centro- 
America  were  never  determined,  as  Clayton  sug- 
gested they  should  be,  by  ^'a  conventional  article.'' 
Sir  Henry  Bulwer  wrote  to  Lord  Palmerston 
(August  6,  1850) : 

not  have  supposed  it  possible  that  any  member  of  the  Senate  could 
have  understood  the  treaty  otherwise  than  we  did  (Reverdy  John- 
son to  Clayton,  March  17,  1853.  Clayton  Papers,  Library  of  Con- 
gress). 

Further  evidence  on  this  point  may  be  found  in  the  phrase 
"concerning  the  States  of  Central  America  and  the  Mosquito 
Coast,'*  used  by  the  President  in  the  full  powers  which  he  issued 
to  Clayton  on  the  6th  of  April,  about  two  weeks  before  the  sign- 
ing of  the  treaty  (Appendix  D).  The  term  "States  of  Central 
America"  is  obviously  political  not  geographical.  This  meaning 
is  emphasized  by  the  use  of  the  connective  "and."  If  "Central 
America"  had  been  used  in  a  geographical  sense,  the  phrase  should 
have  read  "Central  America,  including  the  Mosquito  Coast."  It 
is  true  that,  taking  the  term  Central  America  in  its  political 
sense,  "including,"  not  "and,"  was  the  proper  connective,  as  the 
Mosquito  Coast  was  politically  included  in  the  Central  American 
states  of  Honduras  and  Nicaragua,  but  Great  Britain  denied  this 
fact  and  as  a  consequence  this  phraseology,  both  in  the  full  powers 
and  in  the  treaty  (Article  I),  inconsistent  as  it  was  with  the 
contentions  of  the  United  States,  was  tolerated  as  a  concession 
to  the  British  attitude. 

140 


British  Honduras 

The  term  '* Central  America''  is  used  by  Mr.  Clayton 
and  myself  in  our  convention. 

The  usual  acceptance  given  to  it  would  simply  em- 
brace the  five  states,  viz :  Honduras,  Guatemala,  Salva- 
dor, Nicaragua,  and  Costa  Rica,  which  formerly  con- 
stituted the  Central  American  Republic. 

I  think  it  might  be  advisable  that  the  two  governments 
come  to  a  clear  understanding  as  to  whether  they  mean 
that  the  five  states  in  question  with  their  just  boundaries, 
whatever  those  boundaries  may  be,  are  meant  by  the 
term  "Central  America.'' 

Lord  Palmerston  took  the  hint  thus  given  him 
and  retained  the  diplomatic  advantage  of  imper- 
fect definition.  He  wrote  to  Bulwer  (September 
11,  1850) : 

...  It  will  be  sufiScient  for  the  purpose  of  the  conven- 
tion to  construe  the  term  *' Central  America"  as  com- 
prising those  States  which  formed  the  republic  formerly 
known  by  that  name;  that  is  to  say,  Guatemala,  Costa 
Rica,  Nicaragua,  Salvador  and  Honduras ;  and  it  is  not 
necessary  that  their  boundaries  should  be  especially  de- 
fined. 

Lord  Clarendon,  who  succeeded  Lord  Palmer- 
ston as  Foreign  Secretary,  being  inadequately 
posted,  it  would  seem,  caused  some  confusion  by 
using  the  term  Central  America  with  the  mean- 
ing which  he  had  been  accustomed  to  give  to  it. 
Writing  to  the  British  minister  at  Washington 
(May  27,  1853),  he  said: 

Great  Britain  has  nowhere  in  the  treaty  of  1850  re- 
141 


Chapter  V 

nounced,  nor  ever  had  any  intention  to  renounce,  the 
full  and  absolute  right  which  she  possesses  over  her  own 
lawful  territories  in  Central  America,  such  as  that  desig- 
nation [Central  America]  was  distinctly  understood  and 
declared,  by  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty. 

Great  Britain  had  never  claimed  any  territory 
in  '  *  Central  America ' '  as  *  ^  her  own. ' '  Lord  Clar- 
endon found  it  easier  to  leave  this  language  of 
his  unexplained  than  to  explain  that  the  posses- 
sion to  which  he  referred  as  in  Central  America 
was  British  Honduras.  But  he  later  admitted  his 
mistake  indirectly  by  saying: 

It  is  generally  considered  that  the  term  "Central 
America '^ — a  term  of  modern  invention — could  only  ap- 
propriately apply  to  those  states  at  one  time  united 
under  the  name  of  the  "Central  American  Republic," 
and  now  existing  as  five  separate  republics.  (Clarendon 
to  Buchanan,  May  2,  1854.) 

With  respect  to  the  district  of  Belize,  Her  Majesty's 
government  consider  that  the  only  question  to  be  de- 
termined as  regards  Central  America  is  that  of  the 
boundary  between  that  country  and  the  British  Posses- 
sions (Clarendon  to  Dallas,  June  26,  1856). 

Eef erring  to  such  lapses  as  Clarendon's,  Cramp- 
ton  wrote: 

...  I  am  at  present  unable  to  supply  you  with  an 
explicit  explanation  of  the  passages  of  the  dispatches 
from  which  it  seems  to  be  inferred  that  Belize  is  stated 
by  the  British  government  to  be  situated  in  Central 

142 


British  Honduras 

America.  ...  A  fair  inference,  however,  from  the  text 
of  treaties  and  other  documents  to  which  I  have  access, 
with  regard  to  the  title  of  Great  Britain  to  British 
Honduras  and  its  dependencies,  would  lead  me  to  con- 
clude that  British  Honduras  is  situated  in  Mexico  and 
not  in  Central  America,  properly  so-called.  .  .  . 

It  occurs  to  me  that  in  the  dispatches  in  question  .  .  . 
the  term  '  ^  Central  America ' '  may  have  been  used  in  some 
geographic  sense  in  which  it  has  not  unfrequently  been 
applied  to  the  central  part  of  this  continent,  and  not  in 
the  true  political  and  diplomatic  meaning  of  the  term. 
I  would  remark  too  that  the  boundaries  of  Central  Amer- 
ica, in  the  political  sense,  are  in  some  respects,  not  yet 
completely  defined,  more  particularly  as  regards  the 
boundary  between  Costa  Eica  and  New  Granada,  which 
is  still  in  dispute  between  those  states.^ 

A  court  of  arbitration  would  probably  have  de- 
cided this  question  of  boundary  by  a  compromise 
and  have  drawm  the  Belize-Guatemala  line  some- 
where between  the  Sibun  and  the  Sarstoon  rivers, 
but  this  would  only  show,  as  did  the  award  in  the 
Anglo-Venezuelan  boundary  dispute,  how  unjust 
arbitration  can  be.  There  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  the  just  limits  of  Guatemala  on  the 
north  were  the  line  of  the  Sibun  Kiver,  if  not  a 
line  further  north.  President  Taylor  was  prob- 
ably as  vague  in  his  idea  on  this  point  as  Clayton 
was,  but  no  more  so.  It  may  be  concluded  that  he 
understood  the  line  of  demarcation  to  be  some- 
where between  the  Sibun  and  the  Sarstoon  rivers. 

1  Crampton  to  Clayton,  Jan.  7,  1854.  Cong.  GlolCy  1855-1856, 
p.  1205. 

143 


Chapter  V 

How  did  the  Senate  see  it?  In  his  message 
transmitting  the  treaty  to  the  Senate,  President 
Taylor  said;  *^ Should  this  treaty  be  ratified  it 
will  secure  in  future  the  liberation  of  all  Central 
America  from  any  kind  of  foreign  aggression.'* 
He  gave  no  definition  of  the  term  Central  America. 
Johnson's  Gazetteer,  published  in  London  in  1851, 
contained  the  following  delimitation  of  the 
country : 

Central  America  is  the  long  and  comparatively  narrow 
region  between  latitude  7°  and  22°  north  and  longitude 
78°  and  94°  west,  connecting  the  continents  of  N.  and  S. 
America,  and  comprising,  besides  the  Central  Amer. 
Confed.,  Yucatan,  parts  of  Mexico  and  New  Granada, 
Poyais,  the  Mosquito  Coast,  and  British  Honduras.  In 
a  more  limited  sense  the  term  is  applied  to  the  following 
republics.  .  .  . 

[mentioning  Guatemala,  San  Salvador,  Honduras,  Nicar- 
agua and  Costa  Rica] 

It  was  a  small  portion  of  the  people  of  Great 
Britain  or  of  the  United  States  who  ever  thought 
of  British  Honduras  at  all,  and  during  the  nego- 
tiation of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  this  terri- 
tory was  little  in  the  minds  of  the  American  pub- 
lic, of  the  plenipotentiaries,  or  of  the  Senate.  At- 
tention was  generally  fixed  upon  the  Mosquito 
Coast.  Clayton  and  Bulwer  understood  British 
Honduras  to  be  wholly  or  for  the  greater  part, 

144 


British  Hondurai 

outside  of  Central  America;  of  the  people  gen- 
erally who  gave  any  thought  to  the  subject,  there 
were  more  who  thought  of  it  as  in  Central  Ame- 
rica than  who  thought  of  it  as  outside  of  it ;  there 
was  thus  a  sufficient  number  who  thought  of  it  as 
within  Central  America  to  call  for  a  special  under- 
standing, if  it  was  to  be  considered  as  outside  of 
it.  Unless  otherwise  defined  or  explained,  the 
term  Central  America  would  be  taken  in  its  geo- 
graphical, or  usually  accepted  sense,  and  so  be 
understood  to  include  all  of  British  Honduras. 
Was  there  any  special  definition  or  explanation 
of  it  given  to  the  Senate  1  In  his  note  of  July  4th 
to  Senator  King,  Clayton  asked,  ^^May  I  have 
your  permission  to  add  that  the  true  understand- 
ing was  explained  by  you,  as  chairman  of  [the 
committee  on]  foreign  relations,  to  the  Senate, 
before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  treaty  T'  King 
did  not  give  this  permission,  he  did  not  say  that 
he  or  anyone  else  had  explained  the  matter  to 
the  Senate.  He  simply  asserted,  without  any  ac- 
counting for  his  knowledge  or  belief :  * '  The  Sen- 
ate perfectly  understood  that  the  treaty  did  not 
include  British  Honduras.^'  He  meant  that  the 
Senate  understood,  as  Clayton  understood,  that 
the  treaty  did  not  include  legitimate  British  Hon- 
duras; but  that  it  did  include  all  the  territory 
within  the  late  Federation  of  the  Centre  of  Amer- 
ica.   But  with  this  meaning  the  assertion  was 

145 


Chapter  V 

challenged  and  denied  by  a  number  of  senators 
who  were  in  the  Senate  when  the  treaty  was  acted 
on.  Among  these  were:  Borland,  Cass,  Chase, 
Downs,  Mason,  and  Soule,^  who  with  the  possible 
exception  of  Cass,  spoke  not  only  for  themselves, 
but  for  the  Senate  generally,  to  the  effect  that  the 
treaty  was  understood  to  include  all  British  Hon- 
duras. Senator  Chase  quoted  the  first  sentence 
only  of  the  foregoing  delimitation  {Johnson's 
Gazetteer)  and  said: 

'^,  .  .  That  is  the  description  which  we  had  a 
right  to  believe  was  intended  by  this  treaty  when 
it  was  presented  to  the  Senate.*^  ^ 

There  is  a  difference  between  having  a  right  to 
believe  and  believing.  But  the  former  implies  the 
latter  and  the  actual  belief  of  the  Senate  was  thus 
asserted: 

Now,  Sir,  I  am  perfectly  free  to  say  for  one  that, 
doubting  greatly  as  I  did  at  the  time  the  expediency  of 
the  ratification,  I  should  never  have  voted  for  it,  had  I 
supposed  that  any  secret  construction  was  put  upon  it 
irreconcilable  with  the  obvious  import  of  its  language. 
It  would  have  been  impossible,  in  my  judgement,  to  have 
secured  its  ratification,  had  its  language  conveyed  the 
sense  which  the  private  interpretation  of  Mr.  Clayton's 
letter  puts  upon  it.  Indeed  I  doubt  whether  any  Senator 
would  have  voted  for  its  ratification,  had  it  been  sup- 

1  Senate  speeches:  Borland,  Jan.  10,  1853;  Cass,  id.,  Jan.  11 
and  16,  1854;  Chase,  Jan.  6,  1853;  Downs,  Jan.  6  and  10,  1853; 
Mason,  March  14,  1853;  Soul^,  Jan.  10  and  12,  1853. 

2  Senate  Speech,  Jan.  6,  1853. 

146 


British  Honduras 

posed  that  at  the  very  time  the  treaty  was  under  con- 
sideration here  a  correspondence  was  in  progress,  of 
which  the  Senate  was  not  apprised,  with  the  view  of  fix- 
ing in  advance  the  construction  of  the  treaty,  by  impos- 
ing upon  its  terms  a  sense  quite  different  from  their 
natural  and  obvious  import.^ 

But  this  reminiscing  took  place  a  number  of 
years  after  the  treaty  was  negotiated,  while  the 
United  States  was  in  controversy  with  Great  Brit- 
ain over  her  colonization  of  the  Bay  Islands  as  a 
dependency  of  British  Honduras,  when  the  United 
States  was  for  this  reason  interested  in  making 
out  a  case  against  Great  Britain  with  regard  to 
British  Honduras.  So  considering  the  fallibility 
of  memory  and  the  force  of  patriotic  bias,  it  would 
not  seem  judicial  to  accept  the  statements  of  these 
half  a  dozen  senators  as  conclusive  against  the 
testimony  borne  by  Senator  King  at  the  time  of 
the  negotiation.  Our  conclusion  then  is  this. 
From  the  River  Sibun  (taking  this  line  as  north- 
ern boundary  of  Guatemala),  southward  to  the 
Sarstoon  River,  the  colonization  of  British  Hon- 
duras fell  within  the  limits  of  Central  Amer- 
ica, as  that  term  was  used  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty,  and  was  therefore  a  violation  of  the 
treaty.  North  of  the  Sibun  as  well  as  south  of 
that  line,  it  was  a  contravention  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

On  the  3rd  of  December,  1860,  President  Bu- 

1  Cong.  Olohe,  Jan.  6,  1853,  p.  238. 

147 


Chapter  V 

chanan,  in  an  annual  message  to  Congress,  said: 

The  discordant  constructions  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  between  the  two  governments,  which  at  different 
periods  of  the  discussion,  bore  a  threatening  aspect,  have 
resulted  in  a  final  settlement  entirely  satisfactory  to  this 
government. 

About  twelve  years  later,  British  Honduras 
having  in  the  meantime  been  declared  a  colony, 
Lord  Granville  wrote  to  the  British  ambassador 
in  Washington : 

The  points  in  dispute  were  practically  conceded  by  this 
country  [Great  Britain]  and  the  controversy  terminated 
in  a  manner  which  was  declared  by  President  Buchanan 
to  be  amicable  and  honorable,  resulting  in  a  final  settle- 
ment entirely  satisfactory  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States.^ 

These  statements  have  been  extensively  quoted 
as  evidence  of  the  satisfactory  settlement  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  controversy.  But  they  are  incor- 
rect so  far  as  they  refer  to  British  Honduras. 

Under  the  assumption  of  a  protectorate  of  Mosquito, 
British  authority  was  at  that  time  [1850]  in  actual  visible 
occupation  of  one  end  of  the  Nicaragua  route,  whether 
with  or  without  title  is  not  now  material,  and  it  was  in- 
tended by  this  treaty  to  dispossess  Great  Britain  of  this 
occupation.  This  object  was  accomplished  in  1859  and 
1860  by  treaties  between  Great  Britain,  Guatemala,  Hon- 

a  Granville  to  West,  Jan.  14,  1882. 

148 


The  Bay  Islands 

duras,  and  Nicara^a,  referred  to  in  Lord  Granville's 
dispatch  of  January  14th,  1882.  It  was  to  this  adjust- 
ment, which  was  one  of  the  prime  objects  of  the  treaty 
and  not  to  the  colonization  of  British  Honduras,  that 
Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  message  of  December  3,  1860,  al- 
ludes as  an  amicable  and  honorable  adjustment  of 
dangerous  questions  arising  from  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty.  .  .  . 

The  United  States  have  never  given  their  assent  to  this 
conversion  of  the  British  *' settlement"  in  Central  Amer- 
ica, under  Spanish  American  sovereignty,  into  a  British 
possession  with  British  sovereignty.^ 

The  Bay  Islands 

In  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  at  a  distance  of  from 
thirty  to  fifty  miles  from  the  State  of  Honduras, 
is  a  cluster  of  islands  known  in  English  as  the  Bay 
Islands.  The  largest  one,  called  Koatan,  is  about 
eighty-four  miles  in  circumference.  The  others 
in  order  of  size  are  Quanaja,^  Utilla,  Barbaretta, 
Helena,  and  Morat.  About  them,  the  gulf  is 
strewn  with  wooded  islets  or  keys  that  look  like 
floating  groves.  Roatan,  which  was  discovered  by 
Columbus  in  1502,  was  seized  and  occupied  by 
British  freebooters  in  1642  and  held  by  them  until 
1650,  when  the  invaders  were  expelled  by  the  cap- 
tain-general of  Guatemala.  The  Indians  inhab- 
iting the  island  were  transported  to  the  mainland 
and  the  island  left  uninhabited.    A  century  later 

1  Frelinghuyseii  to  Lowell,  May  8,  1882. 

2  Or  Bonacca. 

149 


Chapter  V 

the  British  descended  upon  it,  established  and 
fortified  themselves  on  it,  but  in  1780  they  were 
again  expelled.  The  treaty  of  peace  of  1783  pro- 
vided that  they  should  abandon  not  only  the  con- 
tinent, with  the  exception  of  Belize,  but  also  *'all 
islands  whatever  dependent  upon  it.''  As  the 
British  evaded  the  stipulations  of  this  treaty  more 
stringent  terms  were  made  by  the  Treaty  of  1786. 
These  required  that  they  *^  evacuate  the  country 
of  the  Mosquitos,  as  well  as  the  continent  in  gen- 
eral, and  the  islands  adjacent  without  exception.'' 
This  time  the  agreement  was  kept.  Great  Britain 
abandoned  the  island.  In  1796,  being  at  war  with 
Spain,  she  conquered  it  again,  but  in  1797  she  had 
again  to  give  it  up.  By  her  treaty  with  Spain  of 
1814,  she  was  excluded  ''from  the  country  of  the 
Mosquitos,  the  continent  in  general,  and  the  is- 
lands adjacent  without  exception. ' '  When  in  1821 
the  Central  American  provinces  achieved  their 
independence  the  Bay  Islands  were  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  province  of  Honduras.  They 
remained  subject  to  the  government  of  Honduras 
when  that  province  became  a  State  and  when  that 
State  entered  the  Federal  Eepublic  of  Central 
America.  They  so  continued  until  May,  1830, 
w^hen  the  British  Superintendent  of  Belize  made 
a  descent  upon  Eoatan  and  seized  it  in  behalf  of 
the  British  Crown.  The  Federal  Eepublic  made 
an  immediate  and  energetic  remonstrance,  and  the 

150 


The  Bay  Islands 

act  was  formally  disavowed  by  the  British  Gov- 
ernment and  the  island  again  abandoned.  In  1838 
a  party  of  liberated  slaves  from  the  British  island 
of  Gran  Cayman  came  to  the  island  to  settle.  A 
fraction  of  this  party,  not  conforming  to  the  laws 
of  Honduras  for  the  government  of  the  island, 
had  a  difference  with  its  commandant.  As  a  con- 
sequence the  Superintendent  of  Belize  took  pos- 
session of  the  island  a  second  time  in  1839.  The 
British  Government  sanctioned  his  actions  and 
continued  to  support  the  British  settlers.  More 
Cayman  Islanders  came  to  swell  the  natural  in- 
crease of  the  original  settlement.  The  Federal 
Eepublic  having  dissolved,  Honduras  remonstrated 
alonCj  but  in  vain.  Salvador  acted  in  the  matter  in 
concert  with  the  State  of  Los  Altos.  On  the  10th 
of  August,  1839,  she  signed  with  the  latter  a  treaty 
of  amity  and  alliance  containing  the  following 
provisions : 

Article  8.  The  representatives  of  both  contracting 
states  shall  be  fully  authorized  to  treat  with  respect  to 
the  means  conducing  to  the  recovery  of  the  Island  of 
Roatan. 

Article  9.  It  is  likewise  agreed  by  the  contracting 
parties —  First:  that  no  agricultural  or  manufactured 
product  of  any  English  possession  shall  be  admitted  [to 
their  respective  territories],  under  whatever  flag  it  may 
come.  Second:  that  no  merchandise  coming  from  an- 
other nation,  shall  be  admitted  to  our  territory,  if  it 
comes  in  an  English  vessel;  and  third,  that  these  pro- 

151 


Chapter  V 

hibitions  shall  last  as  long  as  England  may  fail  to  put 
Central  America  in  possession  of  the  said  Island  of 
Roatan. 

Chatfield,  the  British  consul-general,  considered 
these  articles  an  unprovoked  indignity  to  the  Brit- 
ish Crown  and  called  upon  the  moribund  govern- 
ment of  Los  Altos  for  humiliating  reparation. 
He  went  so  far  as  to  send  to  its  Secretary  of  State 
a  draft  of  a  retraction  for  him  to  sign,  w^orded  as 
follows :  ^ 

The  consul  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  having  repre^ 
sented  to  the  sovereign  government  of  Los  Altos  that 
articles  8  and  9  of  the  treaty  of  amity  and  alliance,  signed 
at  Quezaltenango,  the  10th  of  August  of  last  year,  be- 
tween the  sovereign  states  of  Los  Altos  and  Salvador  are 
an  infraction  of  the  principles  of  amity  and  good  under- 
standing which  have  hitherto  happily  regulated  the  in- 
tercourse between  Great  Britain  and  the  States  of  Cen- 
tral America. 

The  supreme  government  of  Los  Altos,  desirous  of  pre- 
venting the  interruption  of  friendly  relations  with  Great 
Britain,  makes  the  formal  declaration  that  articles  8  and 
9  of  the  forementioned  treaty  of  Quezaltenango,  being 
offensive  to  the  English  Crown,  are  hereby  rescinded.^ 

The  proposition  was  declined.^  Salvador  and 
Los  Altos  held  their  position,  but  so  did  the 
British. 

In  1841,  Macdonald,  the  superintendent  of  Bel- 

1  Translated  from  the  Spanish. 

2MontGfar  III,  72,  73,  425. 

s  Mohna  to  Chatfield,  Jan.  18,  1840. 

152 


The  Bay  Islands 

ize,  with  the  aid  of  a  naval  contingent,  occupied 
Eoatan  and  continued  along  the  coast  in  an  Eng- 
lish frigate,  flying  the  Mosquito  flag,  stopping  at 
San  Juan  and  maltreating  as  already  related,  Col- 
onel Quijano,  the  commandant  of  the  port.^ 

The  British  Government  instructed  the  gov- 
ernor of  Jamaica  in  case  any  foreign  power  took 
possession  of  Eoatan,  to  order  the  departure  of 
the  intruders  and,  if  not  obeyed,  to  eject  them. 
Meanwhile  the  population  was  increased  by  an  ad- 
dition of  English  settlers,  and  Macdonald  seeing 
his  opportunity,  offered  to  appoint  magistrates 
for  them.  Sometime  later  the  offer  was  accepted 
and  thereafter  magistrates  were  regularly  ap- 
pointed by  the  Belize  superintendent.^ 

When  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was  con- 
cluded, Great  Britain  was  still  in  possession  of 
the  Island  of  Eoatan,  or  supporting  her  squatter 
subjects  in  their  unlawful  occupation  of  it.  The 
thought  which  she  now  gave  to  withdrawing  from 
the  Mosquito  Coast  magnified  the  importance  to 
her  of  the  Bay  Islands.  She  was  unwilling  to  give 
up  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan  Eiver  without  taking 
a  position  from  which  she  could  command  it.  As 
such  position  she  chose  Eoatan,  with  a  number  of 
other  islands  in  its  vicinity.  Accordingly,  on  the 
17th  of  July,  1852,  a  proclamation  was  issued  by 

1  Ocean  to  Ocecm  by  J.  W.  G.  Walker. 

2  Anglo-American  Isthmian  Diplomacy  by  M.  W.  Williams,  p.  39. 

153 


Chapter  V 

the  acting  colonial  secretary  at  Belize  declaring 
that  ^^her  Most  Gracious  Majesty  the  Queen,  has 
been  pleased  to  constitute  and  make  the  islands  of 
Eoatan,  Bonacca,  Utiila,  Barbaretta,  Helena,  and 
Morat  to  be  a  colony,  to  be  known  and  designated 
as  the  Colony  of  the  Bay  Islands,''  and  on  the 
10th  of  August,  1852,  more  than  two  years  after 
the  ratification  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty, 
these  islands  off  the  caast  of  Honduras  and  be- 
longing to  that  country,  were  formally  occupied 
and  declared  annexed  to  the  superintendency  of 
British  Honduras. 

In  a  paper  addressed  to  Lord  Clarendon  and 
dated  July  22,  1854,  Mr.  Buchanan,  our  minister 
in  Londan  said : 

When  the  [Clayton-Bulwer]  treaty  was  concluded 
Great  Britain  was  simply  in  the  occupation  of  Ruatan, 
under  the  capture  made  by  Colonel  McDonald  [Governor 
of  Belize].  She  had  established  no  regular  form  of  gov- 
ernment over  its  few  inhabitants  who,  to  say  the  least, 
were  of  a  very  heterogeneous  character.  She  had  then 
taken  but  the  first  step,  and  this  in  the  face  of  the  remon- 
strance of  Honduras,  towards  the  appropriation  of  the 
Island.  .  .  .  Her  relation  towards  Ruatan  at  this  time 
was  merely  that  of  a  simple  occupant.  From  this  occu- 
pancy it  was  easy  to  retire  .  .  .  Instead,  however,  of 
taking  one  step  backward,  the  government  of  Great 
Britain  has  since  taken  a  stride  forward,  and  has  pro- 
ceeded to  establish  a  regular  colonial  government  over  it. 
But  this  is  not  all.  They  have  not  confined  themselves 
to  Ruatan  alone,  but  have  embraced  within  their  colony 

154 


The  Bay  Islands 

five  other  Central  American  islands  off  the  coast  of  the 
State  of  Honduras.  One  of  these,  Bonacca,  says  Bonny- 
castle,  is  an  island  about  sixty  miles  in  circumfer- 
ence, ...  It  was  not  known  however  in  the  United  States 
that  the  British  government  had  ever  made  claim  to  any 
of  these  five  Central  American  islands  previous  to  the 
proclamation  announcing  their  colonization. 

Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  in  his  letter  of  July  4,  1850, 
to  Secretary  Clayton,  alleged  that  Clayton  had 
recognized  certain  islands  as  dependencies  of  Bel- 
ize and  as  not  included  in  the  treaty.  Subse- 
quently the  British  Government  contended  that 
the  islands  thus  recognized  were  the  Bay  Islands. 
Clayton  had  recognized  as  possibly  constituting 
dependencies  of  British  Honduras  *^the  small  is- 
lands in  the  neighborhood  of  that  settlement''  [of 
British  Honduras].  But  the  Bay  Islands  were  in 
the  vicinity,  not  of  British  Honduras,  but  of  Hon- 
duras. Even  if  they  were  dependencies  of  British 
Honduras,  they  were  not  recognized  by  Clayton, 
as  outside  of  the  treaty.  Clayton's  words  were: 
**To  this  settlement  and  these  islands"  [in  the 
neighborhood  of  British  Honduras],  not  to  this 
settlement  and  its  dependencies,  *'the  treaty  we 
negotiated  was  not  intended  by  either  of  us  to 
apply."  There  was  no  reference  here  to  the  Bay 
Islands.  Moreover  he  expressly  included  the  Bay 
Islands  in  the  treaty,  as  he  did  every  other  terri- 
tory, in  case  it  proved  to  be  comprised  in  the  term 

155 


Chapter  V 

** Central  America.''^  He  quoted  from  Senator 
King  that  *^tlie  Senate  perfectly  understood  that 
the  treaty  did  not  include  British  Honduras/'  but 
not  a  word  did  King  say  about  dependencies. 
Neither  Clayton  nor  the  Senate  understood  that 
the  Bay  Islands  were  dependencies  of  British 
Honduras,  and  both  regarded  them  as  included  in 
the  treaty.  The  British  Government,  on  the  other 
hand,  held  that  they  were  dependencies  of  British 
Honduras,  and  that,  British  Honduras  not  being 
in  Central  America,  these  islands  were  not  in  Cen- 
tral America,  and  that  not  being  in  Central  Amer- 
ica, they  were  not  included  in  the  treaty.  That 
they  were  not  dependencies  of  British  Honduras 
is  borne  out  by  British  as  well  as  by  American  evi- 
dence. In  the  dispatch  already  quoted  from  Sir 
George  Grey  to  S.  Coxe,  Esquire,  of  November  23, 
1836,  the  limits  of  British  Honduras  are  defined. 
Their  most  eastern  point  is  given  as  Light  House 
Eeef,  which  is  about  seventy-five  miles  from 
Eoatan. 

In  a  letter  to  Secretary  Clayton,  dated  January 
7,  1854,  Mr.  Crampton,  the  British  minister  at 
Washington,  said: 

The  dependencies  of  British  Honduras  are  in  my  opin- 
ion distinctly  enumerated  in  the  treaty  of  1786. 

1  Clayton  to  Bulwer,  July  4,  1850. 

156 


The  Bay  Islands 

In  this  treaty,  they  are  delineated  as  follows : 

.  .  .  The  point  of  Cayo  Casino  [St.  George ^s  Key]  and 
the  cluster  of  small  islands  which  are  situated  opposite 
that  part  of  the  coast  occupied  by  the  [wood]  cutters  at 
the  distance  of  eight  leagues  from  the  Wallis  River,  seven 
from  Cayo  Casino,  and  three  from  the  river  Siboon. 

These  are  the  islands  previously  referred  to  as 
adjacent  to  British  Honduras.  But  assuming  for 
the  sake  of  argument  that  Clayton  and  Bulwer 
had  agreed  that  the  treaty  did  not  apply  to  her 
** Majesty's  settlement  at  Honduras  or  to  its  de- 
pendencies'' [including  the  Bay  Islands]  such 
agreement  would  not  have  bound  the  United 
States,  seeing  that  it  was  never  approved  by  the 
President  or  the  Senate,  whose  joint  approval  was 
required  by  the  terms  of  Clayton's  full  powers. 

On  the  17th  of  March,  1856,  Clayton,  then  Sen- 
ator from  Delaware,  remarked  in  the  Senate : 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Great  Britain  ever  had 
possession  of  them  [the  Bay  Islands]  before  she  estab- 
lished this  colony  in  open  defiance  of  the  Treaty. 

Exactly  a  fortnight  later,  Mr.  Crampton,  in  a 
dispatch  to  Lord  Clarendon,  said  :...**  it  will  be 
within  your  Lordship 's  recollection  that  Mr.  Clay- 
ton was  informed  by  Sir  Henry  Bulwer,  before 
the  Treaty  of  1850  was  signed,  that  Euatan  was 
de  jure  and  de  facto  a  British  possession ;  and  Mr. 
Clayton  has  on  various  occasions  since,  in  conver- 

157 


Chapter  V 

sation  with  me,  stated  that  he  considered  Euatan 
as  much  a  British  possession  as  Jamaica  or  any 
other  British  West  Indian  Island. '^  ^  Seeing  this 
extract  in  a  newspaper,  Senator  Clayton,  on  the 
following  day  (May  14,  1856),  read  it  before  the 
Senate  and  proceeded: 

Now,  Sir,  I  wish  to  say  in  reference  to  this  statement 
of  conversations  with  me,  that  it  is  utterly  untrue  in 
every  particular,  and  that  the  British  minister  must 
have  labored  under  one  of  the  strangest  hallucinations 
that  ever  affected  the  brain  of  any  man  in  making  such 
a  statement  .  .  .  nothing  like  what  he  imputes  to  me 
ever  escaped  from  me  to  him  or  to  any  one  else.  .  .  . 

He  wrote  to  Mr.  Crampton  (May  16) : 

.  .  .  In  the  extract  of  your  letter  to  Lord  Clarendon 
you  stated  that  "Mr.  Clayton  had  on  various  occasions 
in  conversation  with  me  (you),  stated  that  he  considered 
Ruatan  as  much  a  British  possession  as  Jamaica  or  any 
other  British  AVest  India  Island."  In  reply  to  this  I 
said,  in  my  place  in  the  Senate,  as  appears  by  the  offi- 
cial report  of  the  debate,  these  words:  ''Now,  Sir,  I 
wish  to  say,  in  reference  to  this  statement  of  conversa- 
tions with  me,  that  it  is  utterly  untrue  in  every  par- 
ticular, ' '  etc.     This  I  maintain  it  now  to  be.^ 

These  assertions  of  Clayton's  were  corrobor- 
ated by  statements  of  Senators  Crittenden,  Cass, 
and  Fish.3 

Clayton  had  recognized  the  Bay  Islands  as  oc- 

1  Crampton  to  Clarendon,  March  31,  1856. 

2  Clayton  Papers,  XI,  2196. 

^Cong.  Globe  (1855-1856),  pp.  1205-1207. 

158 


The  Bay  Islands 

cnpied  in  fact  by  Great  Britain,  but  he  meant  that 
the  treaty,  being  immediate  in  its  operation, 
should  terminate  that  occupation. 

...  I  have  been  represented,  he  said,  as  denying  that 
any  letter  was  ever  written  by  Sir  Henry  L.  Bulwer  to 
me  before  the  Treaty  of  1850,  claiming  Roatan  as  a 
British  Island.  Sir  Henry  not  only  wrote  me  such  a 
letter,  but  in  conversation  claimed  the  island  as  British, 
as  fully  as  he  claimed  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to  the 
protectorate  of  Greytown  and  the  Mosquito  Coast.  But 
I  have  always  considered  that  the  treaty  of  Great  Britain 
signed  after  his  claim  was  presented  as  effectually  de- 
prived Great  Britain  of  the  right  to  occupy  that  island, 
if  it  is  within  the  limits  of  Central  America  (as  I  feel 
assured  it  is),  as  it  disarmed  her  protectorate  or  de- 
prived her  of  the  right  to  use  it  [her  protectorate]  for 
the  purpose  of  occupying  any  other  part  of  Central 
America.^ 

Here  he  may  have  erred.  He  had  perhaps  no 
right  to  consider  the  treaty  as  retroactive.  As 
long  as  British  control  of  the  Bay  Islands,  of  the 
Mosquito  Coast,  or  of  Belize  remained  what  it 
was  before  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  the  United 
States  had  possibly  no  grounds  for  complaint. 
But  here  was  a  change  made  subsequently  to  that 
transaction.  Eeferring  to  the  conversion  of  the 
Bay  Islands  from  a  mere  settlement  into  a  colony, 
Lord  Clarendon  wrote  to  Buchanan  (May  2, 
1854) : 

1  Clayton  to  Crampton,  May  16,  1856.  {Clayton  Papers,  XI, 
2196). 

159 


Chapter  V 

.  .  .  Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  admit  that  an 
alteration  in  the  internal  form  of  government  of  these 
islands  is  a  violation  of  the  treaty,  or  affords  a  just  cause 
of  remonstrance  to  the  United  States. 

On  this  point  the  United  States  took  issue  with 
Great  Britain.  It  held  that  the  treaty  prohibited 
the  transformation  of  a  squatter  settlement  into 
a  colony.  This  violation  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  and  contravention  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
continued  until  1859,  when  in  a  treaty  with  Hon- 
duras, Great  Britain  recognized  the  islands  as  a 
part  of  that  republic,  thus  returning  them  to  the 
country  to  which  they  belonged. 

That  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was  first  pro- 
posed by  the  United  States  is  a  misleading  half 
truth,  none  the  less  but  so  much  the  more  mis- 
chievous for  its  approval  and  propagation  by  an 
eminent  publicist. 

Let  me  repeat,  says  Senator  Root,  that  this  treaty  was 
sought,  not  by  England,  but  by  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Clayton,  who  was  Secretary  of  State  at  the  time,  sent 
our  minister  to  France  (Mr.  Rives),  to  London  for  the 
purpose  of  urging  upon  Lord  Palmerston  the  making 
of  the  treaty.  The  treaty  was  made  by  Great  Britain  as 
a  concession  to  the  urgent  demands  of  the  United  States.^ 

If  a  bandit  places  himself  in  my  doorway,  the 
only  way  out  of  my  house,  and  I  propose  as  a  con- 
dition to  his  releasing  me  that  he  take  my  purse, 
it  might  be  said  with  equal  truth  that  this  trans- 

1  Senate  Speech,  Jan.  21,  1913. 

160 


The  Bay  Islands 

action  was  sought,  not  by  the  bandit,  but  by  me ; 
that  the  money  was  accepted  as  a  concession  to 
my  demands.  The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was 
forced  upon  the  United  States.  It  is  hardly  an 
exaggeration  to  say  that  it  was  made  under 
duress. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  canal  could  not  have 
been  built  without  the  financial  assistance  of  Great 
Britain,  and  that  we  made  the  treaty  to  secure 
that  assistance.     To  quote  from  our  State  papers : 

The  government  and  people  of  the  United  States, 
though  rich  in  land  and  industr}^,  were  poor  in  floating 
capital  in  1850.  The  scheme  for  a  canal,  even  without 
the  complications  of  the  Mosquito  protectorate,  was  too 
vast  for  the  means  of  the  Americans  of  that  day,  who 
numbered  then  less  than  one  half  of  their  numbers  to-day. 
They  went  to  England,  which  had  what  they  had  not, 
[they]  surrendered  their  exclusive  privileges,  offered  an 
equal  share  of  all  they  had  in  those  regions,  in  order,  as 
expressed  in  the  seventh  article  of  the  treaty,  ''that  no 
time  should  be  unnecessarily  lost  in  commencing  and 
constructing  the  said  canal '' ^  .  .  .  this  government  .  .  . 
holds,  as  stated,  to  you  in  my  instructions  of  May  8th, 
1882,  and  May  5,  1883,  that  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
the  then  needed  capital  to  construct  an  interoceanic 
canal,  by  the  Nicaraguan  route,  the  United  States  were 
willing  to  surrender  a  part  of  their  exclusive  privileges 
in  a  canal  by  that  route,^  .  .  . 

These  views,  expressed  about  thirty  years  after 

1  Frelinghuvsen  to  Lowell,  May  8,  1882. 

2  7d.,  Nov.  22,  1883. 

161 


Chapter  V 

the  negotiation  of  the  treaty,  are  peculiar  to  a 
single  secretary  rather  than  traditional  in  the  De- 
partment of  State.  Comparatively  soon  after  the 
negotiation,  the  then  secretary  put  the  matter 
thus: 

Considering  that  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
have  jointly  agreed  to  protect  such  a  canal  ...  it  seems 
desirable  that  the  capital  required  for  its  construction 
should  be  advanced  by  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  both 
countries.  If,  however,  English  capitalists  should  not  be 
disposed  to  invest  their  funds  in  the  enterprise,  the 
means  of  its  construction  can  easily  be  obtained  in  this 
country  whenever  our  citizens  shall  be  satisfied  of  its 
practicability  and  that  it  would  yield  a  regular  and  fair 
profit.^ 

If  there  was  any  difficulty  about  raising  the  nec- 
essary money  in  the  United  States,  it  was  due  to 
fear  of  interruption  of  the  transit  and  consequent 
loss  of  dividends,  as  an  incident  of  war  forced 
upon  the  United  States,  and  not  to  the  lack  of 
available  capital  in  the  United  States.  A  United 
States  author  said  in  1820 : 

If  Costa  Rica  were  in  possession  of  a  liberal  govern- 
ment, willing  to  lend  its  encouragement  to  this  important 
object,  capital  in  abundance  w^ould  speedily  be  forthcom- 
ing, either  from  Great  Britain  or  from  the  IJnited  States.^ 

1  Webster  to  Lawrence,  May  14,  1852, 

2  Memoirs  of  the  Mexican  Revolution,  etc.,  by  W.  D.  Robinson, 
p.  349.  It  should  be  noted  that  when  this  was  written  the  Fed- 
eration of  Centre  America,  which  included  Costa  Rica  as  well  aa 
Nicaragua,  had  not  been  formed. 

162 


The  Bay  Islands 

This  language  was  quoted  with  approval  by  a 
British  writer  in  1825,^  In  1850  another  British 
writer  said: 

.  .  .  We  must  look,  not  only  at  the  traffic  which  is 
even  now  before  us,  but  we  must  take  into  account  its 
natural  increase  from  the  greater  cheapness  and  rapidity 
of  the  new  route.  We  must  also  look  at  the  growing  im- 
portance of  Oregon  and  to  the  certainty  of  the  crowd  of 
small  steamers  that  will  rapidly  accumulate  on  the  Pacific 
from  the  smoothness  of  its  waters  and  the  abundance  of 
the  easily  worked  coal  of  Vancouver  Island. 

At  the  same  time,  although  the  view  is  thus  bright, 
there  is  no  great  likelihood  that  it  will  attract  any  amount 
of  English  money.  ...  In  the  United  States,  however, 
the  feeling  is  very  different,  and  every  year  vast  works 
are  quietly  undertaken  there  and  carried  to  completion 
in  a  way  which  would  surprise  those  numberless  people 
who  are  too  apt  complacently  to  believe  that  all  the  world 
stands  still,  except  when  funds  are  sent  from  London. 
.  .  .* '  I  would  not  speak  of  it, ' '  said  one  of  their  writers 
a  few  years  back,  ''with  sectional  or  even  national  feel- 
ing, but  if  Europe  is  indifferent,  it  would  be  glory  sur- 
passing the  conquest  of  kingdoms  to  make  this  greatest 
enterprise  ever  attempted  by  human  force  entirely  our 
own.'' 

We  may  rely,  therefore,  that  the  day  is  gone  by 
when  the  undertaking  could  be  neglected  for  want  of 
funds.  If  carried  out  entirely  by  capitalists  in  the 
United  States,  it  will  probably  be  pushed  forward  with 
less  rapidity  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case;  but  this 
will  be  far  more  than  compensated  by  the  exercise  of 
greater  economy  and  certainty.^ 

1  A  succinct  View  and  Analysis,  etc.,  by  R.  B.  P.  Pitman,  p.  110. 

2  Westminster  Rev.  (Am.  Ed.)  April,  1850,  pp.  70,  71. 

163 


Chapter  V 

When  this  was  written  the  Erie  Canal,  built  by 
the  State  of  New  York,  was  twenty-five  years  old, 
and  work  on  the  Panama  Railroad  was  just  about 
to  begin.  The  latter  was  completed  in  1855. 
Each  of  these  enterprises  cost  from  $7,000,000  to 
$8,000,000.  This  money  was  raised  for  the  Erie 
Canal  by  taxation  in  the  State  of  New  York  and 
for  the  Panama  Railroad  by  private  subscription, 
partly  British,  but  for  the  greater  part  United 
States.  The  cost  of  the  prospective  canal  across 
Nicaragua  was  variously  estimated  at  from  $20,- 
000,000  to  $50,000,000.  But  the  population  of  the 
United  States  in  1850  was  over  23,000,000,  while 
the  people  of  New  York  in  1825,  when  they  com- 
pleted the  Erie  Canal,  numbered  a  little  over 
1,000,000. 

That  the  United  States,  in  its  negotiation  of  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  was  actuated  by  any 
sense  of  financial  necessity  would  seem  to  be  an 
after-thought  of  a  few  publicists  and  historians. 
Its  motive  in  negotiating  the  treaty  was  simply 
to  remove  the  obstruction  and  danger  to  the  canal 
constituted  by  British  encroachments  and  preten- 
tions in  Central  America. 


164 


VI 

The  Treaty  of  Washington   (1871).    Genebal 
Conclusion 

The  Treaty  of  Washington 

This  treaty  had  several  purposes.  Its  principal 
one  was  to  settle  the  claims  of  the  United  States 
based  on  the  operations,  during  the  Civil  War, 
of  Confederate  commerce  destroyers  built  and 
equipped  within  British  jurisdiction.  The  most 
notable  of  these  vessels  was  the  Alabama,  and  the 
claims  came  consequently  to  be  known  collectively 
as  the  Alabama  Claims.  They  were  of  two  kinds : 
direct  and  indirect.  The  direct  claims  were  based 
on  the  actual  destruction  and  capture  of  ships  and 
cargoes  by  the  Confederate  vessels,  and  the  indi- 
rect on  the  following  forms  of  damage  incidental 
to  such  depredation :  the  transfer  of  a  large  part 
of  the  commercial  marine  of  the  United  States  to 
the  British  flag,  the  enhanced  payment  of  insur- 
ance, the  prolongation  of  the  war,  and  the  addi- 
tion of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  it.  These  were 
also  called  national  claims  or  consequential  claims. 
The  money  liability  of  Great  Britain  for  both  di- 
rect   and   indirect    damages   was    estimated    by 

165 


Chapter  VI 

Charles  Sumner  as  $2,500,000,000  or  more.  A 
joint  high  commission  composed  of  five  British 
and  five  United  States  commissioners  met  in 
Washington  and  agreed  upon  the  terms  of  a  treaty 
for  the  arbitration  of  all  the  claims.  It  contained 
among  others,  the  following  provisions: 

Article  I.  Whereas  differences  have  arisen  between 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  and  still  exist,  growing 
out  of  the  acts  committed  by  the  several  vessels  which 
have  given  rise  to  the  claims  generically  known  as  the 
"Alabama  Claims": 

And  whereas  Her  Britannic  Majesty  has  authorized 
her  High  Commissioners  and  Plenipotentiaries  to  express 
in  a  friendly  spirit,  the  regret  felt  by  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment for  the  escape,  under  whatever  circumstances, 
of  the  Alabama  and  other  vessels  from  British  ports  and 
for  the  depredations  committed  by  those  vessels. 

Now,  in  order  to  remove  and  adjust  all  complaints  and 
claims  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  to  provide 
for  the  speedy  settlement  of  such  claims  which  are  not 
admitted  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government,  the 
high  contracting  parties  agree  that  all  the  said  claims 
growing  out  of  acts  committed  by  the  aforesaid  vessels 
and  generically  known  as  the  "Alabama  Claims,"  shall 
be  referred  to  a  tribunal  of  arbitration  to  be  composed 
of  five  Arbitrators,  to  be  appointed  in  the  following 
manner;  that  is  to  say:  One  shall  be  named  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States;  one  shall  be  named  by 
Her  Britannic  Majesty;  His  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy 
shall  be  requested  to  name  one ;  the  President  of  the  Swiss 
Confederation  shall  be  requested  to  name  one;  and  His 
Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Brazil  shall  be  requested  to 
name  one. 

166 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871) 

The  ratifications  were  exchanged  at  London  on 
the  17th  of  June,  1871.  The  following  arbitrators 
were  appointed: 

By  President  Grant :  Charles  Francis  Adams, 
late  minister  at  London. 

By  Queen  Victoria:  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn, 
Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England. 

By  the  King  of  Italy :  Count  Frederic  Sclopis, 
of  Turin,  Senator. 

By  the  President  of  Switzerland:  Jacques 
Staemfli. 

By  the  Emperor  of  Brazil :  Baron  Itajubi,  then 
his  Majesty's  minister  plenipotentiary  at  Paris. 

Each  party  had  an  agent  ^'to  represent  it  gen- 
erally.'' That  of  the  United  States  was  J.  C. 
Bancroft  Davis ;  that  of  Great  Britain,  Lord  Ten- 
terden.  The  counsel  for  Great  Britain  was  Sir 
Eoundell  Palmer,  who  had  as  assistant,  Professor 
Montague  Bernard.  The  counsel  for  the  United 
States  was  composed  of  Caleb  Cushing,  W.  M. 
Evarts,  B.  R.  Curtis,  and  M.  R.  Waite. 

The  tribunal  assembled  at  Geneva,  Switzerland, 
on  the  15th  of  December,  1871.  Mr.  Davis  and 
Lord  Tenterden  presented  the  cases  of  their  re- 
spective governments,  and  the  tribunal  directed 
that  the  respective  counter  cases,  additional  docu- 
ments, correspondence,  and  evidence  called  for  or 
permitted  by  the  treaty  be  delivered  to  the  sec- 
retary of  the  tribunal  on  or  before  the  15th  of 

167 


Chapter  VI 

April,  1872.  The  treaty  required  that  within  two 
months  after  this  date  the  agents  of  the  opposing 
parties  should  present  the  arguments  of  their  re- 
spective governments  to  the  tribunal.^  In  order 
that  they  should  have  all  the  time  therefor  that 
the  treaty  allowed,  the  tribunal,  in  adjourning  on 
the  16th  of  December,  fixed  the  date  of  its  recon- 
vening as  the  15th  of  June,  1872. 

Soon  after  this  adjournment  the  case  of  the 
United  States  became  publicly  known  through  cop- 
ies distributed  in  England  and  the  United  States. 
In  the  meantime  the  British  high  commissioners 
had  returned  from  Washington  and  created  or 
confirmed  the  impression  that  there  would  be  no 
indirect  claims.  They  represented  that  they  had 
secured  a  waiver  of  them  from  the  United  States. 
This  they  had  no  authority  to  do.^  There  could 
hardly  be  a  better  judge  of  the  meaning  of  a  treaty 
than  the  astute  diplomat  who,  with  Mr.  Clayton, 
negotiated  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  Kefer- 
ring  to  this  Treaty  of  Washington,  Sir  Henry  Bul- 
wer  wrote  on  the  17th  of  February,  1872 : 

How  when  our  only  inducement  to  make  a  treaty  was 

1  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Agent  of  each  party  within  two 
months  after  the  expiration  of  the  time  limited  for  the  delivery 
of  the  counter-case  on  both  sides,  to  deliver  in  duplicate  to  each 
of  the  said  Arbitrators  and  to  the  Agent  of  the  other  party,  a 
written  or  printed  argument  showing  the  points  and  referring  to 
the  evidence,  upon  which  his  government  relies.  .  .  .    (Art.  V). 

2Hackett,  Reminiscences  of  the  Geneva  Tribunal,  p.  1720; 
Papers  relating  to  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  III,  188. 

168 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871) 

to  set  this  claim  for  indirect  damages  at  rest,  we  eotdd 
frame  one  which  opened  it,  is  to  me  miraculous.  How 
they  could  introduce  into  such  a  document  the  term 
*' growing  out  of/^  which  would  hardly  occur  to  any  one 
but  a  market  gardener,  is  also  a  marvel.^ 

The  statement  of  the  case  of  the  United  States 
prepared  by  its  agent  in  accordance  with  the  views 
of  its  Government,  embraced  both  the  direct  and 
the  indirect  claims.^  When  England  fully  com- 
prehended it,  the  excitement  in  the  London  press 
and  in  both  houses  of  Parliament  was  intense.^ 
The  air  was  filled  with  resentment  and  protesta- 
tion. On  the  2nd  of  February,  1872,  General 
Schenck,  United  States  minister  at  London,  cabled 
to  Mr.  Fish: 

London  journals  all  demand  that  United  States  shall 

1  Biog.  and  Crit.  Essays  bv  A.  H.  Hayward,  Esq.,  p.  328. 

2  Davis  to  Fish,  Sec.  of  State,  Nov.  13,  1871:  Herewith  I  hand 
you  a  printed  copy  of  the  Case  which  I  have  prepared,  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Tribunal  at  Geneva  on  behalf  of  the  United  States. 
The  case  will  be  accompanied  by  seven  volumes  of  Documents, 
Evidence,  and  Correspondence.  .  .  .  The  seventh  volume  contains 
some  miscellaneous  matter  and  full  statements  of  the  claims  for 
losses,  national  and  individual.  The  former  were  prepared  at 
the  Navy  Department.  Their  completeness  leaves  nothing  to  be 
desired.  The  latter  were  prepared  under  my  direction  by  the 
clerks  in  this  Department  [of  State]   .  .  . 

Fish  to  Davis,  No.  14,  1871:  I  have  received  the  copy  of  the 
Case  with  your  accompanying  letter  of  yesterday.  The  President 
approves  of  your  presentation  of  the  Case,  and  you  are  instructed 
to  present  it  and  the  seven  accompanying  volumes,  at  Geneva  in 
the  manner  required  by  the  Treaty,  as  the  case  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  documents,  oflficial  correspondence,  and  other  evi- 
dence on  which  they  rely. 

3  Rhodes,  VI,  366. 

169 


Chapter  VI 

withdraw  claims  for  indirect  damages,  as  not  within  in- 
tention of  Treaty.  .  .  . 

On  the  following  day  the  Secretary  replied : 

There  must  be  no  withdrawal  of  any  part  of  the  claim 
presented.  Counsel  will  argue  the  Case  as  prepared, 
unless  they  show  to  this  government  reasons  for  a  change. 

On  the  same  day  the  British  Foreign  Secretary 
wrote  to  General  Schenck: 

Her  Majesty's  Government  hold  that  it  is  not  within 
the  province  of  the  Tribunal  of  arbitration  at  Geneva 
to  decide  upon  the  claims  for  indirect  losses  and  in- 
juries. .  .  . 

On  the  7th  of  May,  Fish  cabled  to  Schenck : 

.  .  .  the  submission  of  what  are  called  the  indirect 
claims  is  within  the  province  of  the  Tribunal.  The 
President  alone  has  not  the  power  to  change  or  alter  the 
terms  or  the  principles  of  a  treaty.  He  is  .  .  .  anxious 
to  exhaust  all  proper  efforts  to  reach  a  settlement  .  .  . 

He  will  therefore  be  willing  to  consider,  and  if  possible, 
will  present  for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate,  any  new 
article  of  the  Treaty  which  may  be  proposed  by  the 
British  Government  and  which,  while  it  settles  the  prin- 
ciple iuvolved  in  the  presentation  of  what  are  called  in- 
direct claims,  will  remove  the  differences  which  have 
arisen  between  the  two  Governments  in  their  construc- 
tion of  the  Treaty. 

In  compliance  with  this  suggestion  the  British 
170 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871) 

Government,  on  the  lOth  of  May,  1872,  proposed 
through  General  Schenck  the  negotiation  of  an 
additional  article  eliminating  the  indirect  claims. 
On  the  13th  of  May  this  proposed  article  was  com- 
municated by  President  Grant  to  the  Senate,  not 
as  part  of  a  treaty  for  ratification  but  as  a  request 
for  **an  expression  by  the  Senate  of  their  dispo- 
sition in  regard  to  advising  and  consenting  to  the 
formal  adoption  of  an  article^'  such  as  the  one 
proposed.  If  the  reply  was  favorable,  a  treaty 
was  to  be  prepared  and  submitted  to  the  Senate 
for  its  regular  action.  On  the  25th  of  May  the 
article  was  returned  to  the  President  with  amend- 
ments by  the  Senate.^ 

The  important  feature  of  its  alteration  was  the 
substitution  of  a  past  tense  for  the  present  tense 
in  the  contention  of  the  United  States  respecting 
indirect  claims.  As  amended  the  article  said  noth- 
ing as  to  the  present  understanding  of  the  treaty 
by  the  United  States.  It  bound  the  United  States 
not  to  sue  for  indirect  damages,  but  did  this  ir- 
respectively of  the  right  which  it  might  have  under 
the  treaty  or  otherwise  to  bring  such  suit.  This 
did  not  seem  to  the  British  Government  sufficient 
protection  against  the  indirect  claims,  and  the  ar- 
ticle was  never  ratified.- 

1  Appendix  E. 

2  .  .  .  the  English  with  an  apprehension  that  was  almost  comic, 
believing  that  the  arbitrators  might  insist  on  considering  the 
indirect  claims,  although  the  United  States  refrained  from  urg- 

171 


Chapter  FI 

When  on  the  15th  of  June,  1872,  the  tribunal 
convened  at  Geneva,  the  printed  argument  of  the 
United  States  was  presented  by  Mr.  Davis.  It 
was  expected  that  the  British  agent  would  there- 
upon present  the  argument  on  his  side.  Instead 
of  that,  Lord  Tenterden  offered  a  note  in  which 
he  asked  the  Court  to  grant  an  adjournment  for 
a  period  long  enough  to  enable  the  two  govern- 
ments to  conclude  and  ratify  a  supplementary 
convention  (the  additional  article  still  pending  be- 
tween the  two  governments),  expressing  regret 
that  he  could  not  present  his  argument;  in  other 
words,  declining  to  present  it.  He  did  not  pre- 
sent it,  and  by  such  failure,  violated  Article  V 
of  the  treaty.  When  asked  how  long  a  period 
should  be  allowed  for  the  negotiations  which  he 
proposed,  he  replied  eight  months. 

The  tribunal  adjourned  only  to  the  17th  of  June. 
Understanding  rightly  that  Great  Britain  was  de- 
termined to  wreck  it  rather  than  allow  the  arbi- 
tration of  indirect  claims,  the  members  agreed 
among  themselves,  extrajudicially,  to  arrange,  if 
possible,  for  the  renunciation  or  withholding  of 

ing  them — Lord  Granville  absolutely  declaring  that  "an  agree- 
ment not  to  press  for  compensation  for  these  indirect  claims  is 
not  sufficient,  because  the  arbitrators  in  that  case  might  them- 
selves proceed  to  take  them  into  consideration  and  make  them 
the  subject  of  an  award."  How  forcible  the  argument  in  favor 
of  the  claims  must  have  seemed  to  those  who  feared  that  the 
tribunal  would  take  them  up  and  decide  in  their  favor  in  spite 
of  the  wish  of  those  who  presented  them !  ( Harper's  Mag.,  XLV, 
925). 

172 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871) 

those  claims.  They  persuaded  the  counsel  of  the 
United  States  to  express  to  its  Government  the 
opinion  that  the  claims  for  indirect  damages  did 
not  constitute,  ^^upon  the  principles  of  interna- 
tional law  applicable  to  such  cases,  good  founda- 
tion for  an  award  or  computation  of  damages  be- 
tween nations,''  and  to  advise  that  the  tribunal 
be  authorized  to  exclude  them  from  all  considera- 
tion in  making  its  award. 

For  the  sake,  it  would  seem,  of  the  political 
capital  to  be  realized  in  the  next  election  from  a 
settlement  of  the  Alabama  Claims,  President 
Grant  accepted  the  advice  of  the  counsel;  accord- 
ingly Mr.  Fish,  by  his  direction,  cabled  to  Mr. 
Davis  that  the  indirect  claims  should  be  **  wholly 
excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  tribunal  in 
making  its  award. ' ' 

The  United  States  having  thus  yielded  the  point, 
the  British  argument  was  presented,  and  the  ar- 
bitration proceeded,  with  the  result  that  on  the 
14th  of  September,  1872,  the  tribunal  awarded 
to  the  United  States,  on  account  of  direct  claims, 
including  interest,  the  sum  of  $15,500,000  in  gold. 

Of  all  the  principles  of  international  law,  the 
one  preeminently  applicable  to  this  case  was  the 
fundamental  one  that  treaties  are  made  to  be  kept. 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  had  pledged 
themselves  by  the  Treaty  of  Washington  to  ar- 
bitrate the  Alabama  Claims,  both  direct  and  in- 

173 


Chapter  VI 

direct.  For  political  reasons  certain  members 
of  the  tribunal  objected  to  the  arbitration  of  the 
indirect  claims.  All  agreed  that  there  was  no 
precedent  for  the  arbitration  of  such  claims,  and 
on  this  ground,  with  the  approval  of  the  Govern- 
ments of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  but 
without  modification  of  the  treaty,  the  indirect 
claims  were  thrown  out  of  Court.  Such  action 
was  utterly  illegal.  The  lack  of  a  precedent  was 
no  bar  to  arbitration.  The  tribunal  had  no  need 
of  a  precedent.  It  was  convened  to  make  inter- 
national law,  so  far  as  existing  law  was  inade- 
quate. Its  failure  to  arbitrate  the  indirect  claims 
was  due  to  political  interference  from  both  sides ; 
to  violation  of  the  treaty  by  both  of  the  contract- 
ing parties. 

The  Treaty  of  Washington  contained  a  number 
of  stipulations  as  to  navigation  on  both  sides  of 
the  frontier  line  between  Canada  and  the  United 
States.  Among  them  was  the  following  article 
(XXVII) : 

The  Government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  engages  to 
urge  upon  the  Government  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to 
secure  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  the  use  of  the 
Welland,  Saint  Lawrence,  and  other  canals  in  the  Domin- 
ion, on  terms  of  equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the 
Dominion ;  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States  en- 
gages that  the  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  shall 
enjoy  the  use  of  St.  Clair  Flats  canal  on  terms  of  equal- 

174 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1S71) 

ity  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  and  further 
engages  to  urge  upon  the  State  Governments  to  secure  to 
the  subjects  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty  the  use  of  the 
several  State  canals  connected  with  the  navigation  of  the 
lakes  or  rivers  traversed  by  or  contiguous  to,  the  bound- 
ary line  between  the  possessions  of  the  high  contracting 
powers  on  terms  of  equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the 
United  States. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Great  Britain  guaran- 
tees nothing — she  only  engages  to  urge  certain 
concessions  upon  the  Dominion  of  Canada;  the 
United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  guarantees  to 
Canada  the  use  of  the  St.  Clair  Flats  Canal, 
whether  or  not  the  Dominion  of  Canada  grants 
the  concessions  urged  upon  it  by  Great  Britain; 
the  United  States  agrees  to  urge  certain  conces- 
sions upon  certain  States,  independently  of  any 
concession  made  or  denied  by  the  Dominion  of 
Canada.  It  should  surprise  no  one  that  the 
United  States  was  made  to  suffer  for  entering 
into  such  a  one-sided  agreement.  Vessels  carry- 
ing grain  from  ports  west  of  the  Welland  Canal 
to  United  States  ports  east  of  it  were  charged  a 
toll  of  20  cents  per  ton  on  the  grain,  while  no  such 
charge  was  made  if  the  grain  was  consigned  to 
Kingston  or  other  Canadian  ports. 

The  fact  that  the  coasting  laws  of  the  United 
States  forbade  the  carrying  by  foreign  vessels  of 
domestic  merchandise  between  United  States 
ports,  thus  limiting  such  trade  to  United  States 

175 


Chapter  VI 

vessels,  made  this  grain  toll  practically  a  discrim- 
ination against  United  States  vessels.^ 

The  toll  was  denounced  in  our  Congress  as  ^^an 
open  violation,  both  of  the  spirit  and  letter,  of 
the  Treaty  of  Washington. ' '  ^  But  it  was  not 
shown  that  Great  Britain  had  in  any  way  failed  to 
keep  her  agreement.  The  treaty,  literally  con- 
sidered, was  not  violated.  But  the  discrimina- 
tion against  the  United  States  called  for  retalia- 
tion, and  the  United  States  responded  without 
itself  departing  from  the  letter  of  the  treaty. 
Since  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  the  United 
States  Government  had  assumed  control  of  the 
Saint  Mary's  Falls  (Sault  Ste.  Marie)  Canal.  To 
this  waterway,  as  it  was  not  the  *^St.  Clair  Flats 
CanaP'  nor  a  lake  or  river  under  the  control  of 
a  state  government,  the  treaty  had  no  applica- 
tion. On  the  18th  of  August,  1892,  President 
Cleveland,  with  authority  from  Congress,  imposed 
a  toll  of  20  cents  a  ton  *^on  all  freight  passing 
through  Saint  Mary's  Falls  Canal  in  transit  to 
any  port  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada."  This  ac- 
tion had  the  desired  effect.  The  following  Feb- 
ruary the  Canadian  Government  made  the  dues 
uniform  on  all  vessels  using  the  Welland  Canal 
and  Saint  Lawrence  Eiver. 

1  Collector  of  Customs,  Detroit,  to  Commissioner  of  Naviga- 
tion, Washington,  June  8,  1888. 

2  Rep.  of  Com.  of  Sen.,  1st  Se^s.,  51  Cong. 

176 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871) 

The  Treaty  of  Washington  provided  also  for 
the  settlement  of  long-standing  fishery  disputes 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 
Certain  privileges  were  accorded  by  Great  Brit- 
ain to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  cer- 
tain others  accorded  by  the  United  States  to  the 
subjects  of  her  Britannic  Majesty.  The  former 
were  deemed  by  Great  Britain  to  be  greater  than 
the  latter.  As  a  consequence,  it  was  agreed  that 
commissioners  should  be  appointed  to  determine 
*^the  amount  of  any  compensation  which,  in  their 
opinion,  ought  to  be  paid  by  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  to  the  Government  of  Her  Bri- 
tannic Majesty  in  return  for  the  privileges  ac- 
corded to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States.'^  ^ 
One  of  the  commissioners  was  to  be  named  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  one  by  her  Bri- 
tannic Majesty,  and  a  third  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States  and  her  Britannic  Majesty  con- 
jointly ;  in  case  the  third  commissioner  should  not 
be  appointed  within  a  period  of  three  months  from 
the  date  when  this  provision  should  take  effect, 
he  was  to  be  named  by  the  Austrian  ambassador 
at  London. 

The  agreement  to  leave  an  Austrian  (under  certain 
conditions)  the  choice  of  a  member  of  this  proposed 
board  was  unfortunate.  It  might  reasonably  have  been 
feared  that  a  selection  from  Vienna  would  have  been 

1  Article  XXII. 

177 


Chapter  VI 

prejudiced,  as  the  ambitions  of  the  house  of  Hapsburg 
had  but  recently  been  frustrated  by  the  United  States 
in  the  threat  to  expel  Maximilian  and  his  French  army 
from  the  Western  continent.  The  United  States  govern- 
ment realized  the  blunder  too  late  .  .  .^ 

Great  Britain  was  entitled  by  the  treaty  to  the 
advantage  of  such  a  selection,  provided  it  resulted 
from  no  fault  of  hers.  The  agreement,  of  course, 
did  not  justify  her  in  delaying  the  selection  of 
the  third  member  with  the  object  of  having  him 
appointed  by  the  Austrian  ambassador.  But  this 
is  precisely  what  she  did.  Finding  that  the 
United  States  entertained  objections  to  Mr.  Del- 
fosse,  the  Belgian  minister  at  Washington,  she 
offered  him  as  her  choice.^  Being  requested  to 
name  some  one  else,  she  did  not  proceed  as  the 
treaty  contemplated,  to  an  agreement  between  her 
Britannic  Majesty  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  but  through  her  minister.  Earl 
Granville,  wasted  time  in  proposing  that  the 
choice  be  referred  to  the  ministers  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  at  The  Hague. 
Such  a  departure  from  the  plain  provisions  of 
the  treaty  would,  as  Mr.  Fish  pointed  out,  re- 
quire the  conclusion  of  a  new  treaty  in  con- 
stitutional form.  By  her  procrastination,  Great 
Britain  threw  the  selection  of  the  commission  be- 

1  American  Diplomatic  Questions  by  J.  B.  Henderson,  Jr.,  pp. 
514-515. 

2  Id.,  p.  515. 

178 


The  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871) 

yond  the  end  of  three  months.  It  was  conse- 
quently made  by  the  Austrian  ambassador  and 
fell  upon  Mr.  Delfosse,  the  representative  of  a 
kingdom  that  owed  its  origin  to  the  armed  inter- 
ference of  Great  Britain  and  was  ruled  over  un- 
til a  few  years  before,  by  Leopold  I,  who  was  the 
son-in-law  of  George  IV,  Prince  Eegent  of  Eng- 
land, and  the  Uncle  of  Queen  Victoria  as  well  as 
of  her  husband,  Prince  Albert.  King  Leopold  II 
was  naturally  on  the  most  affectionate  terms  with 
Queen  Victoria.  This  selection  made  two  of  the 
three  commissioners  virtually  British.  The  re- 
sult of  their  arbitraton  is  immaterial.  The  ac- 
tion, or  inaction,  of  Great  Britain  in  this  case  may 
be  fairly  considered  as  another  violation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Washington. 

General  Conclusion 

As  far  back  as  1857  President  Buchanan,  in  his 
first  message  to  Congress,  said: 

...  It  has  been  our  misfortune  almost  always  to  have 
had  some  irritating,  if  not  dangerous,  outstanding  ques- 
tion with  Great  Britain. 

Since  the  origia  of  the  government  we  have  been  em- 
ployed in  negotiating  treaties  with  that  power  and  after- 
wards in  discussing  their  true  intent  and  meaning. 

Since  these  words  were  spoken  we  have  had  the 
Treaty  of  Washington,  with  its  dispute  as  to  in- 

179 


Chapter  VI 

direct  claims,  its  quasi-recipTocsilf  trouble-breed- 
ing provisions  as  to  the  use  of  Canadian  and 
United  States  canals  and  as  to  the  *  *  transit  trade  * ' 
through  Canada  and  the  United  States.^ 

Upon  the  passage  of  the  Panama  Canal  Act  in 
1912,  the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  wrestled  over  the  ambiguities 
abounding  in  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty.  This 
difference  as  to  the  canal  tolls  is  not  yet  settled  in 
principle. 

With  no  other  nation  have  we  had  so  much 
trouble  in  understanding  our  treaty  stipulations  as 
we  have  had  with  Great  Britain.  It  is  an  old 
stratagem  of  diplomacy  for  a  powerful  state,  nego- 
tiating with  a  comparatively  weak  one,  to  make 
the  terms  equivocal,  and  when  the  convention  is 
ratified  to  impose  its  own  construction  of  it  upon 
the  other  party.  In  one  of  the  debates  over  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  Senator  Mason  of  Vir- 
ginia said  (February  20, 1856) : 

I  think  whoever  has  read  this  correspondence  [relative 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  treaty]  will  have  been  struck 
with  the  fact  that  so  far  as  it  was  conducted  on  the  part 
of  the  American  government,  plain,  ordinary  explicit 

1  By  this  arrangement,  which  still  subsists,  goods,  wares,  or 
merchandise  may  go  in  bond  from  a  point  in  the  United  States 
by  way  of  Canada  to  another  point  in  the  United  States,  but  not 
from  a  point  in  Canada  by  way  of  the  United  States  to  another 
point  in  Canada.  (Art.  XXIX).  It  is  easy  to  see  how  this 
favors  the  railroads  of  Canada  at  the  expense  of  those  of  the 
United  States. 

180 


General  Conclusion 

terms  were  used  to  express  an  explicit  and  plain  mean- 
ing; and  that  the  meaning  of  the  American  government 
cannot  be  misunderstood,  whereas  on  the  part  of  the 
minister  who  conducted  the  correspondence  on  the  part 
of  the  British  government  [Lord  Clarendon]  if  you  at- 
tempt to  get  at  the  meaning  of  England,  you  will  fail 
and  find  yourself  involved  in  a  maze  of  confused  sen- 
tences, indeterminate  and  vague  expressions,  in  which 
there  is  no  distinct  assertion  of  title  drawn  from  any 
distinct  source. 

The  sixth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  1783  between 
Spain  and  Great  Britain,  considered  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  Mosquito  question,  required  Great 
Britain  to  withdraw  from  the  Spanish  continent, 
**le  continent  espagnol.''  This  term  was  under- 
stood by  Spain  to  include  the  Mosquito  Coast. 
Great  Britain  knew  that  Spain  so  understood  it. 
But  her  plenipotentiary  signed  the  treaty  as  it 
stood  and  her  king  so  ratified  it,  with  the  intention 
of  interpreting  it  as  not  including  that  country.^ 
Accordingly,  Lord  Palmerston  later  declared  that 
'Hhe  Treaty  of  1783  did  not  apply  [to  the  Mos- 
quito territory]  as  that  treaty  mentioned  only  the 
Spanish  possessions  in  America  and  said  nothing 
about  Mosquito." 

Eeferring  to  the  negotiations  over  the  Suez 
Canal,  a  French  authority  says : 

At  the  Conference  of  Paris  [1885]  England  still  pre- 
serves her  aggressive  and  distrustful  attitude.    What 

1  Anglo- Am.  Diplomacy  by  M.  W.  WiUiams,  pp.  21,  22. 

181 


Chapter  VI 

she  fears  most  is  precision.  As  soon  as  a  question  incon- 
venient to  her  policy  comes  up,  she  seeks  to  evade  it  by 
a  reservation  or,  at  most,  to  give  it  an  equivocal  construc- 
tion, so  as  to  be  able  later  to  profit  by  the  uncertainties, 
if  as  she  hopes,  she  succeeds  in  securing  to  herself  the 
definitive  interpretation  of  the  Convention.^ 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  the  position  taken  by 
certain  United  States  publicists  that  the  meaning 
of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty,  because  it  is  de- 
batable, ought  not  to  be  debated,  seems  of  doubt- 
ful sagacity.  If  we  are  going  to  follow  that  prin- 
ciple, we  ought  to  be  more  careful  than  we  have 
been  in  the  training  and  selection  of  our  diplo- 
mats, especially  when  w^e  have  to  do  with  Great 
Britain.  But  Great  Britain  is  not  to  be  blamed 
for  making  the  best  terms  she  can  in  her  diplo- 
matic bargaining.  We  should  admire  the  ability 
with  which  she  has  overreached  us.  Let  us  not 
waste  strength  in  resenting  it,  but  betake  our- 
selves to  learning  how  she  does  it. 

Diplomacy  is  to  statesmanship  what  technique 
is  to  art;  -expression  to  conception;  or  in  war, 
what  tactics  is  to  strategy.  Tactics  is  the  execu- 
tion of  strategy.  Diplomacy  is  the  execution  of 
statesmanship.  Statesmanship,  like  strategy,  is 
a  science,  which  may  be  learned,  if  not  mastered, 
from  books.  Diplomacy,  like  tactics,  is  an  art 
which  cannot  be  acquired  without  practice.    While 

"^  Etude  sur  le  Rigime  juridique  du  Carnal  de  Suez  by  M.  L. 
Camand,  p.  156. 

182 


General  Conclusion 

in  statesmanship  we  have  little  to  learn  from 
Great  Britain — not  so  much  perhaps  as  she  has 
to  learn  from  us — in  diplomacy  we  cannot  do  bet- 
ter than  to  go  to  school  to  her.  We  should  be 
thankful  that  we  have  not  suffered  more  from  our 
inferiority  to  her  than  we  have.  Senator  Hitch- 
cock was  right  when  he  said,  *^We  have  more  to 
fear  from  British  diplomats  than  from  British 
dreadnoughts."^ 

Now  to  sum  up  and  balance  the  accounts  of  the 
treaty  violations  committed  by  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  against  each  other.  During  the 
one  hundred  and  thirty  years  between  1783  and 
1913,  about  thirty  separate  and  distinct  compacts 
that  may  be  considered  as  treaties  were  concluded 
between  the  two  powers.  Of  these  thirty  treaties, 
the  following  eight  (about  one  in  four)  were  vio- 
lated by  Great  Britain,  several  of  them  in  more 
than  one  particular: 

1.  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace 1784 

2.  Jay  Treaty 1795 

3.  Treaty  of  Ghent 1815 

4.  Rush-Bagot  Agreement 1818 

5.  Convention  respecting  Fisheries 1819 

6.  Convention  for  Indemnity 1823 

7.  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty 1850 

8.  Treaty  of  Washington 1871 

Of  these  treaties  the  first,  second,  fourth,  and 

1  Senate  Speech,  Jan.  4,  1912. 

183 


Chapter  VI 

fifth  may  be  regarded  as  violated  also  by  the 
United  States,  but  with  possible  exception  of  the 
fifth,  only  after  violation  by  Great  Britain.  No 
treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States  appears  to  have  been  violated  by  the  United 
States  alone. 

Eegard  for  treaty  rights  is  not  essentially  dif- 
ferent from  regard  for  other  rights.  Some  idea 
therefore  of  the  comparative  care  of  Great  Brit- 
ain and  the  United  States  for  such  rights  may  be 
formed  from  a  comparison  of  their  records  as  to 
regarding  or  disregarding  each  other's  rights  in 
general.  Aggregating  the  injurious  acts  done,  one 
to  the  other,  in  violation  of  international  law, 
since  the  establishment  of  our  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  1789,  we  get,  in  terms  of  indemnities 
awarded,  the  following  account  or  balance  sheet : 


Paid  ly 

United  States 

to  Great 

Britain 

Cause 

Paid  hy 

Great  Britain 

to  United 

States 

$2,664,000.00 

Debts  to  British  Subjects 
Treaty  of  1802 

Illegal   captures   at   sea 
Id. 

143,428.00 

$11,656,000.00 

Abduction  of  slaves 
Convention  of  182S 

British  and  American  Claims 
Commission  of  1853 

1,204,960.00 
329,734.00 

277,102.88 

Alabama   Claims 
Treaty  of  Washington,  1871 

184 

16,500,000.00 

General  Conclumon 

Paid  by  Paid  by 

United  States  Cause  Oreat  Britain 

to  Great  to  United 

Britain  States 

Other  Civil  War  Claims 

$1,929,000.00  Id.  

Claims  against  U.  S. 
473,151.26  Convention  of  1896  

Pecuiiiary  Claims 
Hague  Convention  (1909) 
18,646.20  Special  Agreement   of  1912  


$5,505,328.34  $28,690,694.00 


The  commission  appointed  to  settle  the  claims 
under  the  special  agreement  of  1912  is  still  at 
work.  It  has  settled  ten  claims.  The  last  item 
($18,646.20  paid  by  the  United  States  to  Great 
Britain)  was  an  indemnity  for  the  capture  of  the 
British  schooner,  the  Lord  Nelson,  by  the  United 
States  naval  authorities,  on  the  5th  of  June,  1812, 
nearly  two  weeks  before  the  declaration  of  war. 
The  vessel  was  taken  by  the  United  States  navy, 
used  against  Great  Britain  in  the  War  of  1812, 
and  never  returned  to  its  owner.^ 

The  other  awards  of  the  commission  are  based 
on  accidental  or  unintentional  injury  and  there- 
fore not  within  the  scope  of  this  computation. 

Considering  and  comparing  the  grand  totals  on 
the  opposite  sides  of  the  account,  we  may  conclude 
that  the  United  States  has  more  than  a  safe  bal- 
ance of  good  faith  to  its  credit. 

1  Am.  Journ.  of  Intern.  Laic,  VIII,  660. 

185 


APPENDICES 


APPENDICES 


Chatfeeld  to  the  Minister 

OP  THE  Supreme  Government 

OF  Nicaragua 

Legation  of  Her  B.  M., 
Guatemala,  Dec.  5, 1850. 
The  government  of  Nicaragua  having  systematically 
slighted  the  frequent  propositions  which  have  been  made 
to  the  republic  of  Nicaragua  in  the  name  of  Her  Majesty 
the  queen  of  Great  Britain,  as  representing  the  king  of 
Mosquito,  with  a  view  of  determining,  by  means  of  some 
formal  arrangement  the  boundaries  between  the  domin- 
ions of  the  aforesaid  king  of  Mosquito  and  the  territory 
of  the  Republic  of  Nicaragua,  Her  Britannic  Majesty  has 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  interest  and  comfort  of 
both  parties  require  that  the  point  should  not  any  longer 
remain  unsettled  .  .  .  circumstances  require  that  the 
general  line  of  the  boundaries  which  Her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment is  disposed  to  maintain  as  Mosquito  territory 
should  be  designated,  the  government  of  Nicaragua  hav- 
ing refused  to  enter  into  a  friendly  discussion  and  to 
appoint  commissioners  to  that  effect  for  settling  the 
boundary  line  between  the  two  territories.  With  this 
view,  the  undersigned,  Charge  d 'Affaires  of  Her  Britan- 
nic Majesty  in  Central  America,  has  the  honor  of  in- 
forming the  supreme  government  of  Nicaragua,  that  the 
general  boundary  line  of  the  dominions  of  Mosquito  runs 
from  the  northern  extremity  of  the  line  which  separates 
the  district  of  Tegucigalpa  in  Honduras  from  the  juris- 

189 


Appendix  B 

diction  of  New  Segovia  in  Nicaragua ;  and  following  close 
upon  the  northern  frontier  of  New  Segovia,  runs  off  from 
the  southern  boundary  of  the  district  of  Matagalpa  and 
Chontales  and  from  thence  in  an  eastern  direction  as  far 
as  the  borders  of  Machuca  in  the  River  of  San  Juan. 


B 

Protocol  Signed  by  the  Plenipotentiaries  of  the 
United  States  and  Honduras  on  the  28th  of 
September,  1849. 

The  United  States  of  North  America  and  the  Republic 
of  Honduras  desiring  to  secure  for  the  benefit,  each  of 
the  other  and  the  general  good  of  mankind,  the  full  and 
perfect  enjoyment  of  the  proposed  grand  interoceanic 
canal  through  the  isthmus  of  Nicaragua,  and  anxious  to 
remove  any  causes  of  apprehension  that  the  Island  of 
the  Tigre  in  the  Gulf  of  Fonseca  and  commanding  the 
same,  may  fall  into  the  possession  of  foreign  and  un- 
friendly powers,  whereby  the  free  transit  of  the  com- 
merce of  the  world  may  be  obstructed  and  the  useful- 
ness of  the  contemplated  great  work  impaired;  for  the 
accomplishment  of  these  and  other  important  objects, 
we  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
Republic  of  Honduras,  have  agreed  and  do  agree  to  the 
following  articles: 

Art.  I.  The  republic  of  Honduras  cedes  to  the  United 
States  of  North  America  the  Island  of  Tigre  in  the  Gulf 
of  Fonseca,  for  the  time  pending  the  ratification  or  re- 
jection of  the  general  treaty  between  the  two  republics, 
this  day  signed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  same,  pro- 
vided such  time  shall  not  exceed  eighteen  months. 

E.  George  Squiee. 
J.  Guerrero. 
190 


Appendix  Q 
C 

1 

Clayton  to  Lawrence 

Oct.  20,  1849. 
....  say  to  his  Lordship  [Pahnerston]  that  we  will 
gladly  enter  into  a  treaty  stipulation  with  her  majesty's 
government  binding  both  nations  never  to  colonize,  an- 
nex, settle,  or  fortify,  any  part  of  the  ancient  territory 
of  Guatemala,  embracing  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  Hon- 
duras, and  indeed  the  whole  Mosquito  Coast. 
CL  Pap.,"^  Yl,  1188i. 

2 
Clayton  to  Lawrence 

Private 

Oct.  21,  1849. 

If  you  can  procure  from  England  a  letter  from  Lord 
P.  disavowing  all  intent  to  colonize  or  occupy  any  part 
of  Nicaragua  or  Costa  Rica  and  agreeing  to  enter  into 
such  a  treaty  with  Nicaragua  as  ours  made  by  Squier 
(marked  A),  it  will  save  us  from  a  collision  with  her. 

If  you  could  also  procure  from  him  a  letter  disavowing 
all  intention  to  colonize  or  occupy  any  part  of  the  Mos- 
quito Coast  that  would  be  still  better. 

If  you  could  also  procure  from  him  an  agreement  to 
guarantee  with  us  the  independence  and  neutrality  of 
Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  Honduras,  and  the  whole  British 
Mosquito  Coast,  that  would  be  better  than  either  of  the 
former. 

CI.  Pap.,  VII,  1205. 

1  Clayton  Papers,  Library  of  Congress. 

191 


Appendix  C 


Lawrence  to  Palmerston 

Nov.  8,  1849. 
....  I  have  been  instructed  by  the  President  to  in- 
quire whether  the  British  government  intends  to  occupy 
or  colonize  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  3Iosquito  Coast 
(so  called)  or  any  part  of  Central  America.  I  have  also 
been  instructed  to  inquire  whether  the  British  govern- 
ment will  unite  with  the  United  States  in  guaranteeing 
the  neutrality  of  a  ship  canal,  railway,  or  other  com- 
munication, to  be  open  to  the  world  and  common  to  all 
nations.  .  .  . 


4 

Palmerston  to  Lawrence 

Nov.  13,  1849. 

.  .  .  Her  Majesty's  government  does  not  intend  to 
occupy  or  colonize  Nicaragua,  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito 
Coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America. 

With  regard  to  Mosquito,  however,  a  close  political 
connexion  has  existed  between  the  crown  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  state  and  territory  of  Mosquito  for  a  period  of 
about  two  centuries;  but  the  British  government  does 
not  claim  dominion  in  Mosquito  .  .  .  with  regard  to 
the  Port  of  Greytown,  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  St. 
John,  Her  Majesty's  government  would  fully  undertake 
to  obtain  the  consent  of  Mosquito  to  such  arrangements 
as  would  render  that  port  entirely  applicable,  and  on 
principles  above  mentioned,  to  the  purposes  of  such  a 
sea-to-sea  communication. 


192 


Appendix  C 


Lawrence  to  Clayton 
Private  and  Confidential 

Nov.  15,  1849. 
.  .  .  You  will  observe  that  Lord  Palmerston  does  not 
positively  commit  himself  in  regard  to  guaranteeing  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Mosquitos.  Nor  do  I  intend  he  shall 
come  to  that  point.  If  the  British  government  wishes  to 
be  the  protectorate  of  the  Indians,  there  can,  I  suppose, 
be  no  objection,  provided  they  will  give  up  their  claim 
to  the  territory.  I  believe  Lord  Palmerston  and  Lord 
John  Russell  desire  to  settle  this  question,  but  they  know 
not  what  to  do  with  the  Indians.  .  .  . 
CI.  Pap.,  VII,  1292. 

6 

Clayton  to  Lawrence 

Dec.  10,  1849. 
.  .  .  The  note  of  Lord  Palmerston  to  yourself  of  the 
13th  ult.,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Mosquito  question,  is 
in  many  respects  satisfactory.  .  .  .  Lord  Palmerston 's 
offer,  however,  to  obtain  the  consent  of  Mosquito  to  such 
arrangements  as  would  render  the  Port  of  Greytown  ap- 
plicable to  the  purposes  of  such  a  communication  is 
pregnant  with  a  meaning  which  materially  qualifies  the 
other  parts  of  his  note.  This  offer  implies  that  the 
British  ministry  persists  in  regarding  the  Mosquitos  as 
a  sovereign  state  and  that  their  consent  alone  is  necessary 
for  any  arrangements  involving  the  use  of  the  port  of 
Greytown.  This  government,  however,  can  never  ac- 
knowledge the  independence  of  the  Mosquitos  or  admit 
that  they  have  any  rights  of  sovereignty  over  the  port 
of  Greytown  or  the  country  adjacent  thereto.  .  .  . 
CI.  Pap.,  VII,  1341. 

193 


Appendix  C 

7 
Lawrence  to  Palmerston 

Dec.  14,  1849. 

The  occupation  of  Greytown  and  the  attempt  to  es- 
tablish a  protected  independence  of  Mosquito  throw  at 
once  obstacles  in  the  way,  excite  jealousies  and  destroy 
confidence,  without  which  capital  can  never  flow  in  this 
channel  .  .  .  the  undersigned  can  discover  no  cause  that 
will  insure  the  accomplishment  of  this  great  work  except 
the  extension  of  Nicaragua  from  shore  to  shore,  includ- 
ing of  course,  the  dedication  of  Grej^town  to  the  pur- 
poses of  the  canal,  which  Her  Majesty's  government 
have  already  expressed  a  willingness  to  do.  .  .  .  The 
undersigned  has  therefore  the  honor  to  inquire  of  Vis- 
count Palmerston  whether  Her  Majesty's  government 
are  willing  ...  to  let  the  protectorate  of  the  Indians 
pass  to  other  hands  under  proper  checks  and  guards 
for  their  humane  treatment  and  let  such  parts  of  the 
territory  (said  to  be  occupied  by  them)  as  may  be 
necessary  be  dedicated  to  this  great  work.^ 

8 

BuLWER  IN  Quarterly  Review 

(Vol.  XCIX)  1856 

In  the  foregoing  correspondence,  dominion  is  disowned 
— close  political  connection  is  asserted.  What  was  that 
close  political  connection?  The  humane  protection  of 
those  Indians  from  aggression  and  such  aid  towards  civil- 
izing and  christianizing  them  as  the  advice  of  a  super- 
intendent at  the  councils  of  their  chief  might  afford — in 
short  the  connection  distinct  from  dominion,  then  actually 

1  To  this  inquiry  no  answer  was  received.  About  this  time 
the  negotiations  were   transferred  to  Washington. 

194 


Appendix  C 

knonm  to  exist.  What  then  do  the  negociators? — ^they 
take  the  very  question  of  the  American  minister — they 
take  the  very  answer  the  question  receives  from  the 
British  government,  as  the  guide  and  groundwork  of 
their  own  negociation — they  shape  those  words  into  a 
clause  of  the  treaty,  and  they  define  the  political  con- 
nection with  the  Mosquitos  claimed  by  the  British  gov- 
ernment as  distinct  from  dominion,  by  saying,  that 
neither  Great  Britain  nor  America  will  make  use  of  any 
protection  either  state  affords — any  alliance  either  has 
or  may  have  with  any  people,  to  fortify,  occupy,  colon- 
ize, or  exercise  dominion  in  Central  America.^ 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  was  thus  purely  com- 
mercial. It  was  not  framed  to  settle  the  Mosquito  ques- 
tion, but  to  prevent  the  Mosquito  question  being  an  ob- 
stacle to  the  completion  of  the  American  canal. 

The  protectorate  is  admitted,  its  continuance  is  ad- 
mitted. You  shall  not  make  use  of  the  protection  you 
afford  or  may  afford,  to  do  so  and  so :  words  that  imply 
a  right  that  might  be  possessed  then,  and  a  right  that 
might  be  assumed  hereafter  .  .  .  occupation  in  the  ter- 
ritory of  another  power  has  invariably  a  military  or 
imperial  significance.  .  .  .  But  take  the  word  according 
to  its  plain  sense,  in  "Johnson's  Dictionary  "—to  *' oc- 
cupy" is  to  possess  or  rather  to  take  possession.  In 
neither  sense  of  the  word,  diplomatic  or  familiar,  did 
we  occupy  the  Mosquito  territory  at  the  time  of  the 
treaty,  nor  do  we  so  occupy  it  now  [1856]   ...  Do  we 

1  In  a  letter,  Sir  Henry  wrote  from  Rhoda-on-the-Nile,  Febru- 
ary 17,  1872:  .  .  .  "when  I  had  to  make  a  treaty  with  them 
[Americans]  I  took  the  trouble  of  going  over  all  their  old  treaties, 
and  in  important  passages,  I  only  used  such  words  as  they  had 
used,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  had  used  them.  Then  when  they 
began  their  usual  disputes  about  interpretation,  I  quoted  their 
own  authority."  {Biog.  and  Critical  Essays  by  A.  Hayward  II, 
328.) 

195 


Appendix  C 

occupy  it  by  military  garrison?  Certainly  not.  Do  we 
assume  dominion  over  the  Indian  King?  So  much  the 
contrary,  that  we  compel  the  few  English  who  are  in  the 
territory  to  acknowledge  his  soyereignty,  and  it  is  the 
very  acknowledgment  of  his  sovereignty  of  which  the 
Americans  complain.  .  .  . 

9 

Clayton  to  Bulwer 

Private  Jan.  1,  1850. 

.  .  .  your  draft  of  the  proposed  convention  is  here- 
with returned  .  .  . 

CI.  Pap.,  VIII,  1423. 

10 

Bulwer  to  Clayton 

Sunday 

[Feb.  3,  1850]  Rec'd  3  p.m. 

I  enclose  you  the  draft  [of  the  Treaty]  as  amended 
according  to  your  desire. 

I  have  added  an  article  [Article  7]  at  Mr.  White's^ 
desire  and  as  I  understood  him,  at  yours.  It  can  stand 
or  not  as  you  desire  ...  H.  L.  B. 

Finis  coronai  opus!!! 
CI.  Pap.,  VIII,  1472. 

1  Probably  J.  L.  White,  a  member  of  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic 
Canal  Company,  organized  for  the  construction  and  operation  of 
the  canal.  Its  other  members  were  Cornelius  Vanderbilt,  N.  H. 
Wolfe,  E.  H.  Miller,  Messrs.  Rawden,  Grossbeck  and  Bridgham 
(a  firm),  Hoyt  and  Heney  {do.),  Livingston,  Wells  and  Co.  {do.), 
and  0.  L.  White. 

196 


Appendix  C 

11 

Clayton  to  Bulwer 

Private  &  confidential 

1/2  past  4  p.m.  Feb.  3,  1850. 

I  have  inserted  in  pencil  a  few  words  in  the  draft  on 
the  4th  page  **or  assume  or  exercise  any  dominion  over 
the  same."  See  Lord  Palmerston's  dispatch  to  Mr.  L. 
He  disclaims  expressly  any  British  dominion.  We  will 
do  the  same.    Keep  the  words. 

John  M.  Clayton. 
P.S.    If  the  draft  is  disapproved  by  Great  Britain,  it 
is  understood  between  us  that  it  never  was  made  or 
thought  of. 

CI.  Pap.,  VIII,  1474. 

12 

Clayton  to  Bulwer 

Draft  (Private  and  Confidential) 

Feby.  11,  1850. 
.  .  .  Our  pro  jet  [of  a  treaty]  signed  by  us  on  the  3rd, 
which  is  to  be  considered  as  ** having  never  been  made'* 
in  case  our  governments  do  not  approve  it,  did  in  my 
opinion,  bind  both  parties  not  to  occupy — that  is,  take 
or  keep  possession — and  I  did  not  believe  nor  do  I  now 
believe  that  Great  Britain  would  have  ever  violated  the 
plain  meaning  of  the  word  by  sending  a  force  to  enable 
the  Mosquito  King  to  drive  off  the  Nicaraguans  and  keep 
the  possession  by  British  arms,  under  any  other  name. 
Others  differ  with  me  and  insist  that  Great  Britain  shall 
plainly  say  "we  abandon  the  protectorate  every  way.*' 
Could  the  United  States  under  our  projet  have  sent  an 
armed  force  as  the  ally  of  Nicaragua  to  occupy  for  her 

197 


Appendix  C 

the  town  of  San  Juan  without  violating  the  whole  spirit 
of  the  treaty  ?  Construing  our  words  to  have  a  fair  and 
honest  meaning  I  thought  and  still  think  them  sufficient. 
But  what  objection  can  your  government  make  to  ex- 
plain our  words  and  exclude,  by  the  explanation,  any  un- 
just inference.  I  have  said  to  you  that,  without  such  an 
explanation,  our  projet  is  to  be  held  as  never  having 
been  made.  Pending  our  private  negotiations,  without 
instructions  on  either  side,  I  had  no  opportunity  of  con- 
sulting the  President  or  his  cabinet  and  they  were,  as  I 
informed  you,  entirely  ignorant  of  our  doings  or  inten- 
tions, and  now,  having  consulted  them,  as  soon  as  I 
properly  could,  I  have  held  it  a  duty  to  apprise  you 
frankly  and  without  a  moment's  delay,  of  the  futility  of 
our  labors.  You  seem  to  think  the  explanations  required 
impossible.  Then  let  the  projet  we  drew  up  be  consid- 
ered as  having  never  been  made,  according  to  our  writ- 
ten agreement.  The  failure  is  our  private  and  personal 
misfortune,  but  not  the  fault  of  either  of  our  govern- 
ments. 

Endorsed 
...  I  do  hereby  certify  that  the  within  is  the  original 
draft  of  a  private  note  addressed  by  John  M.  Clayton,, 
Secretary  of  State,  on  the  11th  day  of  February,  A.  D. 
1850,  to  Sir  H.  L.  Bulwer,  from  which  I  copied  the  letter 
which  I  know  was  sent  to  Sir  Henry  on  the  same  day 
and  further  that  the  written  draft  was  copied  verba- 
tim. .  .  . 

Washington,  March  6,  1856, 

Geo.  p.  Fisher. 
CI  Pap.,  VIII,  1481. 


198 


Appendix  C 

13 

BtnLWER  TO  Clayton 

Feb.  14,  1850. 

.  .  .  My  opinion  undoubtedly  is  that  the  project  of 
convention  that  we  sent  to  England  satisfied  the  honor 
and  interests  of  both  parties.  If  your  cabinet  however 
entertain  any  doubts  upon  this  matter,  I  have  no  wish  to 
urge  a  contrary  opinion  upon  you,  but  at  all  events,  it 
would  be  desirable  to  know  clearly  what  are  the  difficul- 
ties that  exist  in  order  that  all  parties  may  as  soon  as 
possible  devise  the  best  means  (if  means  there  be)  for 
meeting  them.  ' '  One  never  goes  so  far  as  when  one  does 
not  know  where  one  is  going."  Our  govt  is  bent,  as  I 
have  frequently  assured  you,  upon  doing  everything 
which  is  honorable  &  decorous,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
most  friendly  relations  with  this  country  and  to  promote 
a  work  of  general  interest  to  commerce  and  civilization. 

Do  not  ask  from  us  anything  which  we  cannot  grant 
without  sacrificing  some  portion  of  that  character  which, 
after  all,  it  is  for  your  honor  and  dignity  to  maintain 
unimpaired,  because  it  is  the  character  of  your  fathers. 
Concessions  of  this  kind  we  can  never  make  to  any  power 
upon  earth,  nor  would  we  ever  like  to  see  you  make 
them. 

Now  let  me  place  before  you  the  question  as  it  presents 
itself  under  existing  circumstances.  We  in  consequence 
of  old  engagements,  took  part  with  the  Mosquito  people 
against  the  Nicaraguans  and  put  the  former  in  posses- 
sion of  a  territory  which  we  thought  belonged  to  them; 
we  were,  not  in  this,  doing  anything  hostile  to  you ;  you 
had  at  that  time  no  peculiar  relations  with  the  Nica- 
raguans, and  we  could  not  suppose  that  you  would  take 
any  part  in  the  quarrel ;  ^  but  if  after  this  you  make  a 

1  One  might  think  that  Bulwer  had  never  heard  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

199 


Appendix  C 

treaty  with  the  Nicaraguans  recognizing  their  claim  and 
agreeing  to  support  their  claim,  may  I  not  say  that  you 
commit  knowingly  an  act  of  hostility  towards  us  ?  What 
would  you  have  said  for  instance,  if  we,  during  the 
pending  dispute  between  you  and  Mexico,  had  made  a 
treaty  with  Mexico,  receiving  from  her  a  grant  within 
the  boundary  which  you  and  she  both  claimed  and 
agreeing  to  support  her  pretensions?  The  cases  are 
nearly  parallel,  because  though  the  Mosquito  territory 
is  not  claimed  by  us  we  are,  after  what  has  passed,  as 
much  compromised  in  the  Mosquito  claim  as  you  were  in 
the  Texan;  and,  after  all,  for  what  reason  would  you 
seek  a  quarrel  with  us?  for  the  sake  of  the  canal?  We 
will  do  everything  to  favor  it  that  you  can  desire;  any 
proposition  for  this  object,  to  construct  the  said  work, 
to  protect  its  neutrality  when  made;  to  deliver  our- 
selves from  the  imputation  of  seeking  selfish  and  exclu- 
sive advantages  therefrom,  I  will  submit  to  Lord  Palm- 
erston  with  readiness  and  pleasure;  but  I  am  sure  you 
will  perceive  that  a  proposal  couched  in  any  form,  to 
take  the  territory  in  question  from  the  Mosquitos,  and  to 
deliver  it  up  to  the  Nicaraguans  would  not  be  a  proposal 
that  we  could  creditably  accept.  Moreover  such  a  pro- 
posal will  have  this  peculiar  character,  which  is  any- 
thing but  an  impartial  one,  it  would  be  taking  a  posses- 
sion from  a  people  who  had  been  for  centuries  under  our 
protection,  and  who  have  never  given  you  any  offense 
in  order  to  make  it  over  to  another  people  whom  you 
have  recently  taken  under  your  protection,^  and  who  by 
their  language  and  proceedings  towards  us  of  late  have 
assumed  a  position  of  almost  quasi  hostility. 

I  wish  you,  my  dear  Sir,  would  think  well  over  the  con- 
tents of  this  letter,  so  that  it  may  lead  to  some  result 

1  To  this  point  dictated  or  copied  by  an   amanuensis.     From 
here  on  in  the  handwriting  of  Sir  Henry  Bulwer. 

200 


Appendix  C 

previously  to  the  departure  of  the  next  packet.  Let  me, 
at  all  events,  then  be  able  to  develop  clearly  what  the 
views  of  your  cabinet  (if  they  differ  from  those  con- 
tained in  our  project)  really  are.  May  I  beg  you,  tho' 
this  letter  is  but  a  private  one  (since  I  am  anxious  to 
avoid  any  public  controversial  correspondence),  to  lay 
it  before  your  colleagues,  and  if  I  am  not  taking  a  liberty 
in  such  a  request,  before  the  President,  with  whom,  were 
it  agreeable  to  you  and  to  him,  I  should  be  most  happy 
to  converse  on  the  subject,  which  at  this  moment  is  so 
near  our  thoughts.  .  .  . 

CL  Pap,,  VIII,  1490-1493. 

14 

Clayton  to  Bulwer 

Eead  to  Mr.  Bulwer,  but  not  sent  to  him. 

Private  and  confidential. 
Feb.  15,  1850. 

I  agree  with  you  that  *'it  would  be  desirable  to  know 
clearly  what  are  the  difficulties  that  exist,  in  order  that 
all  parties  may,  as  soon  as  possible,  devise  the  best 
means  (if  means  there  be)  for  meeting  them.''  The 
chief  difficulty,  and  the  only  one  which  I  have  not  yet 
been  able  to  overcome,  is  to  be  found  in  the  assertion 
by  your  government  of  the  Mosquito  title.  Your  Gov- 
ernment does  not  understand  us.  So  far  from  seeking 
a  quarrel  with  Great  Britain  the  President  has  been 
studious  ever  since  he  came  into  office,  to  awaken  your 
Government  to  the  danger  to  both  of  us  of  an  approach- 
ing quarrel.  The  Mosquito  question  was  first  introduced 
into  the  Congress  some  years  ago,  by  a  Senator  from 
New  York  and  it  has  attracted  attention  through  the 
country  ever  since.     The  deepseated  conviction  of  this 

201 


Appendix  C 

nation  now  is  that  the  British  expedition  in  the  name  of 
the  Mosquito  King,  against  the  State  of  Nicaragua  was 
unjust  and  in  direct  opposition,  not  only  to  what  we 
call  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  reiterated  by  Mr.  Polk,  the 
late  President,  that  no  European  power  shall  interpose 
in  the  affairs  of  the  American  republics,  but  to  the 
settled  doctrine  of  the  English  law,  applied  by  England 
and  the  United  States  to  all  savage  tribes,  than  [sic]  an 
Indian  title  is  but  a  title  by  occupancy,  liable  at  all 
times  to  be  **  extinguished "  at  the  will  of  the  discoverer 
of  the  country.  We  have  applied  this  doctrine  to  per- 
haps a  hundred  Indian  tribes.  We  were  taught  it  by 
England.  She  applied  it  in  America,  in  all  cases.  It 
is  true,  sound,  Anglo-Saxon  doctrine,  repeatedly  sanc- 
tioned by  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  who  have  on  all  occasions  expressly  declared  that 
they  derived  the  law  from  England  and  English  prec- 
edents. Nothing  could  shock  the  American  people  more 
than  the  repudiation  of  this  doctrine.  They  cannot  un- 
derstand how  it  can  be  contested  by  Englishmen  or 
Americans.  Were  England  now  to  claim  the  protector- 
ate in  virtue  of  an  ancient  alliance  made  two  hundred 
years  ago,  with  the  Wyandots,  the  Shawnees,  the  Root- 
diggers,  the  Blackfeet  or  the  Flatheads  of  the  West  or 
with  the  Seminoles  and  their  chief,  Billy  Bowlegs,  such 
a  pretension  would  not  astonish  them  more.  Your  East 
Indian  princes  held  a  different  title.  They  were  sover- 
eigns and  were  recognized  as  such  by  England,  but  no 
American  sachem  or  chief  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States  or  British  America  was  ever  regarded  as  having 
any  other  title  than  that  of  mere  occupancy,  to  which 
the  discoverer  had  a  right  of  preemption,  we  call  a 
right  of  extinguishment.  The  Spaniards  were  not  as 
just  as  our  ancestors  towards  the  Indians.  They  did 
not  acknowledge  even  an  Indian  title  to  occupancy  which 

202 


Appendix  C 

they  were  bound  to  pay  for  before  it  could  be  extin- 
guished. 

Now  do  not  be  alarmed!  I  am  not  going  to  inflict 
upon  you  the  sayings  of  any  writer  on  the  law  of  na- 
tions or  of  any  American  judge,  or  even  of  those  English 
judges  whose  great  names  are  held  in  veneration,  not  only 
in  yours,  but  in  my  country.  I  have  never  thought  your 
Mosquito  title  legal  or  valid.  But  without  taxing  your 
patience,  I  will  ask  your  indulgence  to  permit  me  to 
say  to  you,  as  I  now  do,  with  equal  sincerity  and  good 
feeling,  that  I  have  forborne  to  discuss  it  with  you,  be- 
cause I  thought  it  unnecessary,  when  two  such  nations 
were  attempting  to  negotiate  for  the  accomplishment  of 
the  greatest  work  of  the  age,  that  they  should  quarrel 
about  such  a  pretension.  ]\Iy  great  respect  for  the 
British  government  restrained  me,  and  I  have  sought  to 
appeal  to  the  magnanimity  and  philanthropy  of  England, 
in  such  a  way,  as  should  not  awaken  even  a  suspicion  on 
her  part,  that  we  thought  of  dishonoring  her;  and  it 
has  been  my  wish  to  prevent  such  a  question  from  being 
made  a  topic  of  public  discussion  in  the  Congress  of  the 
U.  S.,  because  I  sincerely  desire  to  strengthen  the  ties 
of  respect  and  amity  between  the  two  countries. 

Our  war  with  jMexico  commenced  in  May  1846.  In  the 
latter  part  of  1847  we  negotiated  with  Mexico  for  the 
purchase  of  California  and  New  Mexico,  and  in  February 
1848,  we  made  a  treaty  with  Mexico  at  Guadalupe 
for  the  cession  of  those  territories.  The  Nicaragua 
route  presented  us  the  only  chance  for  a  ship  canal,  a 
railroad  or  any  other  road  or  passage  across  the  Isthmus, 
and  at  the  very  moment  of  the  purchase  we  were  struck 
with  surprise  by  the  seizure  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain, 
in  the  name  of  the  Mosquito  King,  of  the  only  outlet  for 
such  a  canal  or  passage. 

The  territory  in  the  vicinity  of  the  San  Juan  River  was 
of  little  value  to  England.    The  Nicaraguans  were  in 

203 


Appendix  C 

peaceable  possession  of  it.  The  Indians  were  a  miser- 
able race,  syphilitic  and  leprous  and  but  few  in  number. 
Their  tribe  is  believed  to  be  more  degraded  than  any 
other  on  the  whole  American  continent.  I  am  assured 
that  by  the  laws  of  Nicaragua,  it  is  death  to  intermarry 
with  them  on  account  of  the  hereditary  diseases  to  which 
they  are  subject.  But  a  few  years  can  elapse  before  the 
whole  race  will  probably  be  extinct.  Their  speedy  an- 
nihilation is  believed  to  be  certain  from  causes  which 
you  and  I  perfectly  understand,  and  especially  the  ad- 
vance of  the  white  man  and  the  rum  bottle.  Our  ad- 
vices from  that  quarter  are  that  there  are  not  two 
thousand  of  them  now  on  the  whole  Mosquito  Coast  and 
that  between  Blewfields  and  San  Juan  Rivers  there  are 
but  480  men,  women,  and  children,  and  they  are  con- 
stantly decreasing  in  numbers.  Now  I  never  knew  two 
sensible  men  [to]  fight  about  a  blue-bird's  skin,  and  I 
think  two  sensible  nations,  such  as  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  conceive  themselves  to  be,  should  have 
more  brains  than  to  expend  life  and  treasure  in  a  con- 
test with  friends  and  kinsmen  about  these  miserable 
Indians,  and  especially  if  we  find  on  examination  that 
they  will  be  quite  as  well  taken  care  of  if  we  let  them 
alone.  Could  England  lose  anything  by  abandoning 
those  Indians?  Could  England  possibly  lose  anything 
by  omitting  to  assert  their  title,  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
structing a  work  worth  more  to  her  and  us  than  a  thou- 
sand times  the  value  of  the  whole  Mosquito  Territory  ? 

But  you  ask  me,  **Why  do  you  seek  a  quarrel  with 
us"?  I  answer  we  do  not;  and  but  for  our  recent  ac- 
quisitions on  the  Pacific,  we  might  have  slept  in  stupid 
indifference  to  the  whole  project  of  connecting  the  two 
oceans  by  a  ship  canal  or  other  means  of  passage,  an  in- 
difference which  has  been  a  disgrace  to  the  great  civilized 
nations  of  the  earth  for  a  hundred  years.  Now  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  we  Yankees  have  found 

204 


Appendix  C 

out  that  this  canal  or  some  other  passway  must  be  made 
and  that  there  is  but  one  spot  yet  discovered  where  such 
a  passage  as  we  want  can  be  had.  We  went  there  to 
look  at  it,  and  we  found  that  you  had  taken  possession 
of  the  outlet  of  it  at  the  very  moment  when  it  became 
indispensable  to  us.  This  seemed  to  us  to  be  unkind,  but 
we  did  not  want  to  make  a  quarrel  of  it.  We  examined 
the  title  and  found,  as  we  at  least  thought,  that  you  had 
acquired  none  and  we  resorted  to  what  we  think  was 
the  rightful  authority  to  give  us  permission  to  make 
the  canal.  We  obtained  that  permission  and  we  imme- 
diately determined  to  offer  you  and  all  other  nations 
equal  advantages  with  ourselves  in  case  we  should  make 
it,  but  we  asked  you,  in  the  kindness  of  friends,  not  to 
interrupt  it,  not  to  control  or  command  it,  but  to  leave 
it  open  for  the  benefit  of  the  human  family — we,  your 
descendants  being  among  the  number. 

Now  you  seem  to  think  that  you  alone  are  called  upon 
to  make  a  sacrifice  of  something  for  an  object  in  which 
we  shall  gain  equal  advantages  with  yourselves.  You 
are  greatly  mistaken.  There  is  not  one  of  these  five 
Central  American  states  that  would  not  annex  them- 
selves [sic^  to  us  tomorrow,  if  they  could;  and  if  it  be 
any  secret  worth  knowing,  you  are  welcome  to  it — some 
of  them  have  offered  and  asked  to  be  annexed  to  the 
United  States  already.^  Your  government  could  not  an- 
nex one  of  them  with  its  own  consent  and  in  the  face  of 
these  facts,  we  offer  to  agree  with  you  that  we  will  not 
occupy  (or  interpose  to  exercise  any  influence  over) 
[any  of  them]  if  you  only  consent  to  give  up  your  al- 
liance to  your  Mosquito  King.  .  .  . 

In  the  experimental  project  [of  a  treaty]  which  you 
and  I  have  drawn  [up]  and  sent  to  England,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  neither  nation  shall  occupy,  fortify  or  colon- 
ize.   Had  our  respective  governments  agreed  upon  that, 

1  CaBtellon  to  Bancroft,  July  12,  1849. 

205 


Apperidix  C 

then  suppose  Great  Britain  to  send  down  a  fleet  to  San 
Juan  to  occupy  or  interpose  for  the  Mosquito  King  as 
his  ally  and  protector ;  by  the  same  rule  we  as  the  allies 
of  Nicaragua,  could  send  another  fleet  and  would  be 
bound  to  do  it  to  help  Nicaragua;  for  we  have  quite  as 
good  a  right  to  defend  Nicaragua  as  you  have  to  defend 
the  Mosquito  Indians;  and  with  every  possible  respect 
for  those  who  entertain  a  contrary  opinion,  I  think  our 
interference  would  be  justifiable  on  much  better  prin- 
ciples. Nay  we  should  be  disgraced  if  we  did  not  in- 
terfere. 

The  Nicaraguan  charge  has  been,  you  know,  in  Wash- 
ington. Everybody  here  who  has  chosen  to  inquire  of 
him  knows  that  the  Central  American  Republics  are 
ready  for  annexation  to  the  United  States,  if  we  would 
admit  them.  I  am  not  like  the  farmer  who  wanted  no 
outside  row  to  his  corn  field;  but  on  this  subject  of  an- 
nexation, as  My  Lord  Coke  sayeth  '^Note  a  diversity.^* 
Your  Anglo-Saxon  is  every^^here  like  his  ancestors  more 
than  1700  years  ago,  ^^capax,  pugnax,  rapax.^*  The  dis- 
ease is  hereditary  with  us,  and  for  that  reason  our 
fathers  will  more  readily  excuse  us.  I  shall  never 
whisper  this,  my  private  opinion  of  our  and  your  pecul- 
iar qualities  in  the  ears  of  any  one  but  an  American  or  an 
Englishman.  Fitch  in  the  Beggars  Opera  said  "he 
would  not  willingly  forget  his  own  honor  by  betraying 
anybody"  Que  cum  ita  sint.  Do  you  not  plainly  see  that 
in  agreeing  with  you  to  restrain  our  appetites,  I  am  en- 
titled to  more  credit  for  the  virtue  of  abstinence  than 
even  yourself.  In  sober  earnest  do  you  not  feel  that  in 
making  an  arrangement  with  you,  by  which  both  our 
countries  should  be  restrained  from  any  influence  or  con- 
trol over  the  Central  American  states,  we  [Americans] 
are  making  that  concession  which  commits  us  more 
against  public  opinion  in  America  than  it  commits  you 
against  public  opinion  in  England? 

206 


Appendix  C 

I  understand  your  title,  and  if  you  desire  to  enter  into 
an  argument  Tvdth  me  on  the  subject,  I  will  pledge  my- 
self to  lay  it  before  an  English  audience  and  show 
that  your  pretension  of  a  rightful  alliance  with  the 
Mosquito  Indians,  for  two  hundred  years  or  for  any 
other  period  is  an  error.  But  suppose  I  succeeded  in 
such  a  controversy,  should  I  gain  anything  more  by  it 
than  by  a  frank  appeal  to  British  magnanimity  and 
British  philanthropy  ?  When  we  invite  Great  Britain  to 
follow  us  in  the  progress  of  commerce  and  civilization, 
her  mighty  spirit  will,  I  trust,  prompt  her  to  lead,  not 
merely  to  follow.  You  know  I  would  have  trusted  you 
[the  people  and  government  of  Great  Britain]  upon  the 
project  of  a  treaty  which  you  and  I  drafted.  Wiser 
men  think  the  Senate  would  refuse  to  ratify  the  treaty 
without  an  extinguishment  of  the  Indian  title  in  Central 
America,  and  that  though  anxious  for  a  friendly  settle- 
ment of  this  question  with  England,  they  will  refuse  to 
bind  us  [Americans]  by  treaty  not  to  occupy,  fortify, 
colonize,  or  exercise  dominion,  over  Central  America, 
unless  England  will  submit  to  what  they  consider  a 
much  smaller  sacrifice  by  abandoning  the  whole  British 
alliance  with  the  I\Iosquito  King. 

I  have  written  to  you,  my  dear  Sir,  as  you  wrote  to 
me,  a  private  and  confidential  letter.  I  have  shown 
your  letter  confidentially  to  the  President,  as  you  re- 
quested. He  expressed  himself  in  the  kindest  manner 
towards  you  and  your  government,  but  he  is  deeply  im- 
pressed with  the  conviction  that,  unless  Great  Britain 
can  abandon  the  protectorate,  we  cannot  abandon  our 
alliance  with  Nicaragua.  We  must  and  shall  attempt 
to  make  the  canal. 

The  result  of  it  all  is  that  we  shall  vindicate  the 
Nicaragua  title  in  the  least  offensive  way  we  can,  to- 
wards your  government;  and  whenever  you  shall  be 
ready  to  extinguish  the  Indian  title  south  of  Balise  [sic] 

207 


Appendix  C 

Kiver  or  to  abandon  the  protectorate  of  it  south  of  that 
river,  we  will  agree  with  you  not  to  colonize,  fortify,  oc- 
cupy or  exercise  dominion  over,  any  part  or  all  of  Cen- 
tral America.  If  you  refuse  to  extinguish  that  Indian 
title  or  to  abandon  the  protectorate,  we  shall  hold  our- 
selves at  liberty  to  annex  any  part  of  the  Central  Amer- 
ican States  or  to  make  any  other  contract  with  them 
which  our  interests  may  dictate.  The  President  thinks 
we  make  by  far  the  greatest  concessions.  If  you  refuse 
to  abandon  the  protectorate  now  set  up  at  Blewfields  and 
San  Juan,  [to  abandon  it]  for  the  sake  of  the  canal,  thus 
retaining  an  influence  over  other  nations  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  work,  you  may  break  up  the  enterprise  and 
create  an  excessively  bad  feeling  between  our  respective 
countries. 

Nicaragua  ought  to  be  held  the  rightful  proprietor 
of  the  country  in  dispute,  with  this  limitation,  that  all 
private  titles  to  lands  made  between  March  1848  and 
this  time  shall  be  good  and  valid.  When  you  abandon 
the  protectorate  set  up  by  you  and  not  recognized  by 
us,  or  extinguish  the  Indian  title,  then  let  Mosquito  and 
Nicaragua  settle  the  difference  between  themselves,  with- 
out our  interference;  but  if  you  will  interfere  to  assist 
the  Mosquitos,  we  must  and  shall  interpose  in  behalf  of 
Nicaragua.  Such  are  the  President's  instructions  to  me. 
If  our  project  of  a  treaty  had  been  adopted,  the  rCvSult 
would  have  been  the  same,  as  I  have  already  stated. 

I  am,  my  dear  Sir, 

Sincerely  yours 

MEMORANDUM 

This  note  [February  15,  above]  was  written  in  reply  to 
Sir  Henry 's  private  note  to  me  of  the  14th  of  February, 
1850.  When  about  to  send  it  to  him  next  evening,  he 
Qame  to  my  house,  and  I  repeated  its  contents  to  him  in 

208 


Appendix  C 

a  conversation  and  then  read  it  over  to  him.  He  said 
it  was  unnecessary  to  send  it  as  he  fully  understood  me 
and  asked  me  not  to  send  it.  Its  tone  of  pleasantry  and 
frankness,  which  possibly  might  be  held  offensive,  in- 
duced me  to  comply  with  his  request,  especially  as  I 
sometimes  objected  to  and  declined,  receiving  some  of 
his  private  notes.  It  is  therefore  preserved  as  an  ac- 
curate record  of  conversation  with  H.  B.  M.'s  minister 
on  the  night  of  the  15th  of  February,  1850. 

John  M.  Clayton. 
CI  Pap.,  VIII,  1496-1501. 

15 

BuLWER  TO  Clayton 

[Marked  Private  on  Envelope] 

February  17,  1850. 

I  am  willing  to  transmit  to  Lord  Palmerston  any  pro- 
posal from  you,  the  consideration  of  which  you  state  to 
be  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  peace  and  a  good 
understanding  between  the  two  countries.  But  I  can 
only  engage  to  recommend  what  is  according  to  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  instructions  I  have  received,  or 
what  appears  to  me  a  perfectly  fair  and  beneficial  term- 
ination of  the  difficulties  which  have  arisen. 

In  this  spirit  I  have  already  recommended  what  has 
lately  appeared  to  both  of  us  all  that  was  necessary  for 
the  great  and  primary  object,  out  of  which  the  question 
under  agitation  grew  up;  i.e.  the  construction  and  pro- 
tection of  the  projected  ship  communication  across  the 
Isthmus. 

The  nature  of  your  suggestion  of  yesterday  is  that  we 
should  withdraw  our  protection  from  the  territory 
claimed  by  the  Mosquitos  within  one  hundred  miles  of 
the  River  San  Juan  and  that  neither  of  us  should  in- 

209 


Appendix  C 

terfere  with  whatever  may  occur  with  respect  to  this 
territory. 

You  would  then,  I  understood  you  to  say,  lay  the  treaty 
made  by  Mr.  Squier  before  Congress,  which  treaty  rec- 
ognizes the  claims  of  the  Nicaraguans  over  the  whole 
line  of  communication  which  it  is  intended  to  establish. 
"What  follows  ?  Either  the  Nicaraguans  go  back  to  main- 
tain themselves  in  the  territory  in  question  under  the 
declaration  from  you  that  it  is  their  rightful  property, 
we  having  withdrawn  therefrom  the  Mosquitos  whose 
rightful  property  we  declared  it  to  be,  or  the  spot  in 
question  which  it  is  our  desire  to  preserve  for  the  ob- 
ject of  commerce,  in  tranquility  and  peace,  become  the 
scene  of  confusion  and  war  between  a  variety  of  belliger- 
ent claimants  or  a  center  for  any  collection  of  persons, 
whatever  their  pursuits  or  character,  that  may  therein 
assemble,  without  our  having  the  power  to  establish 
safety,  law,  or  order  over  the  same. 

I  cannot,  indeed,  undertake  to  recommend  this  plan 
as  the  best  that  can  be  proposed,  either  for  fairly  set- 
tling the  Nicaragua-IMosquito  claim  or  for  providing  for 
the  safe  construction  of,  and  uninterrupted  passage 
through,  the  canal  which  we  have  in  view. 

I  will,  however,  I  repeat,  make  this  proposal  from  you 
to  Lord  Palmerston,  if  you  desire  it.  But  if  you  wish 
this,  or  if  you  wish — because  I  cannot  recommend  the 
said  proposal — to  withdraw,  according  to  an  intention 
which  you  seemed  to  indicate,  your  sanction  to  the 
arrangement  which  has  been  already  transmitted  to 
England,  I  would  then  beg  of  you  to  state  thus  much 
by  a  few  words  in  writing,  since  such  an  authority 
would  be  required  to  contradict  the  contents  of  a  docu- 
ment which  has  our  signatures  and  which  is  now  under 
consideration. 

I  trust,  however,  that  taking  advantage  of  the  friendly 

*  210 


Appendix  C 

feelings  that  subsist  between  us,  you  will  allow  me  here- 
upon to  make  two  or  three  observations. 

It  seems  to  me  perfectly  natural  that  your  colleagues 
should  not  desire  you  to  give  me  any  opinion  of  theirs 
as  to  what  has  taken  place,  until  I  can  state  what  is  the 
opinion  of  my  own  Government.  But  I  confess  to  you 
that  it  appears  to  me  that  you  can  not  in  your  own 
name  withdraw  with  propriety  or  essentially  alter  the 
project  signed  by  you;  and  indeed  that  neither  of  us 
can  propose  any  alteration  therein,  I  to  your  Government 
or  you  to  mine,  except  when  we  are  able  to  state  that 
we  do  so  on  account  of  the  opinion  of  our  respective 
cabinets;  and  that  consequently  no  farther  formal  step 
can  be  taken  in  this  matter  until  Lord  Palmerston's  an- 
swer arrives. 

I  may,  however,  in  the  meantime  make  to  him,  and 
you  to  your  colleagues,  any  representations  that  we  think 
calculated  to  promote  the  ultimate  result  which  we  must 
equally  desire. 

Yours  my  dear  Sir, 

Very  sincerely, 
CI.  Pap.,  VIII,  1509-1511. 

16 

Clayton  to  Bulweb 

February  18,  1850.  10  o'clock  p.  m. 
...  I  have  at  present  no  hope  of  success  if  your  Gov- 
ernment refuses  to  withdraw  the  Mosquito  claim  from 
the  country  south  of  Bluefields  River,  while  we  are  called 
upon  to  abandon  all  Central  America.  Your  Govern- 
ment must  act  speedily,  if  at  all.  If  our  project  of  a 
treaty  should  fail  in  spite  of  all  our  efforts,  let  it  then  be 
buried  in  oblivion  according  to  our  written  agreement. 
To  prevent  a  controversy  I  have  done  that  with  you 

211 


Appendix  C 

which  I  will  never  do  with  any  minister  again — tried  to 
make  a  treaty,  without  instructions. 
CI  Pap,,  VIII,  1512-1513. 

17 

BuLWEB  TO  Clayton 

[Feb.  18,  1850.] 
I  send  you  my  letter  for  Lord  Palmerston  which  in 
case  you  write  to  Lawrence  announcing  this  change, 
send;  but,  if  not,  keep  back  my  letter;  because  I  feel 
[that]  by  sending  anything  of  the  kind  and  thus  playing 
fast  and  loose,  we  risk,  and  this  essentially,  all  chances 
of  coming  to  a  happy  arrangement  at  all.  What  can  a 
Government  think  of  a  negociation  thus  varied  within 
a  week  ?  Moreover,  the  idea  of  our  ceding  the  territory 
to  Nicaragua,  is  after  all,  '* Moonshine " ;  the  suggestion 
of  such  a  pretention  is  little  short  (between  ourselves)  of 
a  positive  declaration  of  war.  You  must  see  all  this  as 
well  as  I  do. 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

H.  L.  B. 
Sunday. 

CL  Pap.,  IX,  1676. 

18 

Clayton  to  Bulweb 

April  6,  1850. 
Draft  [of  note] 

Nothing  in  this  treaty,  should  it  be  entered  into  by 
the  United  States,  shall  be  construed  to  be  an  admission 
on  the  part  of  this  government,  of  any  right  or  title 
whatever  in  the  IMosquito  King,  to  any  part  of  Central 
America  or  of  what  is  called  the  Mosquito  Coast.    The 

212 


Appendix  C 

British  government  has  long  been  fully  aware  that  this 
government  has  denied  the  title  claimed  for  the  Mosquito 
Indians  and  of  the  fact  that  the  United  States  had  nego- 
tiated a  treaty  (now  before  the  senate)  recognizing  the 
title  of  Nicaragua  over  the  line  of  the  canal. 

Private 

I  have  taken  great  pains  to  find  out  on  what  terms 
our  project  of  a  treaty  can  pass  the  senate. 

The  President  and  the  cabinet  have  arranged  the  fore- 
going note  of  this  date,  which  is  addressed  to  you  by 
me  after  full  consideration.  This  note  is  deemed  by  the 
President  indispensable  to  define  his  position  before 
signing  the  Treaty.  He  will  not  suffer  it  to  be  signed 
on  any  other  terms. 

I  am  well  satisfied  after  diligent  inquiry  that  without 
this  note,  the  treaty  could  not  possibly  pass  the  Senate. 
It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to  negociate  further  on 
any  other  terms.  You  can  now  notify  me  of  the  time 
when  you  will  be  ready  to  exchange  powers  and  sign,  and 
I  will  immediately  prepare  to  receive  you. 
CI,  Pap,,  VIII,   1594. 

19 

BuLWER  TO  Clayton 

April  7,  1850. 
I  should  have  no  insurmountable  objection  to  your 
note,  if  it  stopped  at  * '  Mosquito  Coast, ' '  but  if  you  mean 
to  inform  me  officially  at  this  time  that  you  intend  to 
recognize  by  treaty  the  rights  of  Nicaragua  over  the 
Mosquito  territory,  this  seems  to  me  so  unnecessary  and 
unprovoked  an  act  of  hostility  .  .  .  that  I  could  not 
seem  to  be  indifferent  thereto  in  my  reply,  or  appear  to 
think  otherwise  than  that  you  had  incurred  the  respons- 

213 


Appendix  C 

ibility  of  breaking  off  at  this  last  moment,  and  in  no 
kindly  manner,  an  arrangement  conducted  throughout 
by  me,  and  hitherto  by  both,  in  the  most  friendly  spirit. 
CI,  Pap,,  VIII,  1601. 

20 

Clayton  to  Bulwer 

Private  and  Confidential 

April  8,  1850. 
.  .  .  The  President  cannot  conceive  how  the  assertion 
of  the  simple  fact  in  my  last  official  note  to  you  that  this 
Government,  by  the  Squier  treaty,  recognized  the  sov- 
ereignty of  Nicaragua  over  the  line  of  the  canal  could 
be  offensive  to  your  Government.  It  was  made  known 
to  Lord  Palmerston  before  you  came  to  this  country. 
.  .  .  We  have  never  sought  to  conceal  it.  .  .  . 
I  am  but  the  organ  of  the  President  and  declare  his 
views  to  you,  and  he  himself  is  compelled  to  negotiate 
with  a  view  to  the  opinions  of  those  who  share  with  him 
the  treaty-making  power.  ...  If  you  say  that  your  ob- 
ject in  making  the  treaty  was  to  compel  us  to  deny  the 
Nicaragua  title  then  we  may  as  well  abandon  the  nego- 
tiation. 

P.  S.    Rely  on  it,  I  send  you  the  Prestos  ultimatum. 
CL  Pap.,  VIII,  1603. 

21 

Bulwer  to  Clayton 

Private  and  confidential 

Apl.  9,  1850. 
....  If  you  think  it  absolutely  necessary  to  state 
civilly  and  quietly  that  it  is  not  understood  by  you  in 

214 


Appendix  C 

our  treaty  that  you  recognize  thereby  the  title  of  the 
Mosquitos,  I  shall  not  on  that  ground  refuse  to  sign  our 
treaty  and,  if  instead  of  stating  in  your  treaty  with 
Nicaragua,  that  you  recognize  the  claim  of  Nicaragua 
over  the  ]\Iosquito  Territory,  you  state  that  you  will  do 
your  utmost  to  obtain  by  good  offices  for  her  a  satisfac- 
tory settlement  of  the  differences  which  have  arisen  be- 
tween her  and  Great  Britain  with  respect  to  the  said 
territory,  I  do  not  think  that  under  existing  circum- 
stances, this  would  be  greatly  objectionable,  even  if  it 

were  not  agreeable 

CI.  Pap.,  VIII,  1610. 


22 

BuLWEB  TO  Clayton 

18  April,  1850. 
....  It  is  no  use  our  tr^dng  to  get  round  each  other 
and  it  is  in  neither  of  our  characters.  .  .  .  The  Eng. 
Gov.  are  disposed  to  do  everything  they  can  with  honor, 
but  cannot  with  honor  abandon  [their]  defensive  pro- 
tectorate of  Mosquito  as  long  as  the  obligations  binding 
them  thereto  are  not  solved  by  the  ]\Iosquitos,  nor  if 
there  be  any  threat  held  out  to  them  on  this  subject. 
Anything  short  of  this  I  have  always  bad  you  to  [sic] 
O.  K.  and  I  now  agree  to  all  you  have  asked,  although 
I  deem  that  your  informing  us  you  don 't  recognize  what 
we  don't  ask  you  to  recognize  [Note  of  Ap.  6,  1850]  is 
unnecessary  [and]  will  for  various  reasons  be  inexpe- 
dient. .  .  . 

CI.  Pap.,  IX,  1634. 


215 


Appendix  C 

23 

Clayton  to  Bulwer 

Private  and  confidential 

Eetain  copy 
April  19,  1850, 
11  o'clock  P.  M. 
The  treaty  signed  by  us  today  which,  when  ratified, 
will  prevent  the  occupation  or  annexation  of  Central 
America  or  the  Mosquito  Coast  to  either  of  our  govern- 
ments, as  we  understand  it,  will  make  it  an  imperative 
duty  to  be  performed  by  us,  to  use  our  good  offices  to 
settle  speedily   all  questions   of  territory  between  the 
small  governments  of  Central  America.    We  are  both 
debarred  from  governing.     Anarchy  and  war  between 
the  people  of  that  region  will  probably  soon  ensue,  if  we 
neglect  this  subject. 
CI.  Pap.,  IX,  1650. 

24 

Clayton  to  Lavstrence 
Draft  May  12,  1850. 

I  hope  .  .  .  that  the  Brit.  Ministry  will  have  the 
good  sense,  after  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  to  consent 
that  Nic^  shall  extinguish  the  Mosq.  title.  ...  I  can 
see  no  other  way  of  bringing  the  country  adjoining  the 
canal  under  our  government,  which  all  nations  could 
recognize,  without  a  sacrifice  of  opinion  on  the  part 
of  any. 

CI.  Pap.,  IX,  1708. 

25 

Lawrence  to  Clayton 

June  7,  1850. 
.  .  .  The  Treaty  will  be  ratified  [by  Great  Britain], 
216 


Appendix  C 

but  with  a  lingering  feeling  toward  maintaining  the 
rights  of  the  Indians  to  the  Mosquito  territory.     You 
must  arrange  the  details  in  regard  to  a  supplemental 
Treaty  with  Sir  Henry.  .  .  . 
CI.  Pap.,  IX,  1725. 

26 
Granville  to  Crampton 

Feb.  20,  1852. 

It  would  appear  as  if  the  United  States  government 
considered  that,  from  the  moment  of  the  conclusion  of 
the  convention  of  the  19th  of  April,  1850,  Great  Britain 
had  renounced  all  right  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of 
Greytown  and  the  ^Mosquito  Country,  and  engaged 
to  relinquish  that  place  and  country  to  the  state  of 
Nicaragua. 

Her  Majesty's  government  cannot  admit  such  an  in- 
terpretation of  the  convention  of  the  19th  of  April,  by 
which,  as  understood  by  Her  Majesty's  government, 
Great  Britain  is  not  precluded  from  protecting  the  Mos- 
quitos,  but  is  only  restricted  from  occupying,  fortifying, 
or  colonizing,  or  of  assuming  or  exercising  any  dominion 
over,  the  Mosquito  coast  or  any  part  of  Central  America. 

27 

Clarendon  to  Crampton 

May  27, 1853. 
.  .  .  nor  has  Great  Britain  renounced  by  the  Treaty 
the  protection  which  she  has  for  centuries  past  afforded 
and  still  affords,  to  the  Mosquito  territory  ...  if  either 
Nicaragua  or  Honduras  were  still  to  continue  to  make 
aggressions  on  the  Mosquito  territory  with  that  object,  it 
must  be  at  their  own  peril. 

217 


Appendix  C 

28 

Marcy  to  Borland 

Dec.  30, 1853. 
You  will  regard  it  [the  Treaty]  as  meaning  what  the 
American  negotiator  intended  when  he  entered  into  it, 
and  what  the  Senate  must  have  understood  it  to  mean 
when  it  was  ratified,  viz :  that  by  it,  Great  Britain  came 
under  engagements  to  the  United  States  to  recede  from 
her  asserted  protectorate  of  the  Mosquito  Indians,  and 
to  cease  to  exercise  dominion  or  control  in  any  part  of 
Central  America.  If  she  had  any  colonial  possessions 
therein  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  she  was  bound  to 
abandon  them  and  equally  bound  to  abstain  from  colo- 
nial acquisitions  in  that  region. 

29 

Reverdy  Johnson  to  Clayton 

Dec.  30, 1853. 
.  .  .  our  government  had  no  motive  and  no  desire  to 
prevent  Great  Britain  from  performing  any  of  the  duties 
which  charity  or  compassion  for  a  fallen  race  might 
dictate  to  her,  or  to  deprive  ourselves  of  the  power  to 
interfere  to  the  same  extent  in  the  cause  of  humanity. 
.  .  .  But  we  did  intend  (and  the  treaty  contains  every- 
thing for  that  purpose  that  could  be  desired)  to  pre- 
vent the  British  government  from  using  any  armed  force 
without  our  consent,  within  the  prohibited  region,  under 
pretext  or  cover  of  her  pretended  protectorate.  .  .  .  The 
moment  Great  Britain  threatens  with  arms  to  defend 
the  Indians,  and  claims  a  right  to  do  so  in  virtue  of  the 
treaty,  we  may  claim  by  the  same  instrument,  with  equal 
justice,  the  right  to  take  arms  in  defense  of  Honduras 
and  Nicaragua. 

218 


Appendix  C 

I  remember  well  that  you  steadily  refused  every  effort 
on  the  part  of  Sir  Henry  to  induce  you  to  recognize  the 
title  of  Nicaragua  or  any  other  Central  American  state, 
and  left  the  British  government  the  right  to  recognize 
the  title  of  the  Mosquito  King,  On  these  points  the 
parties  agreed  to  disagree.  But  the  right  to  recognize 
is  a  very  different  affair  from  the  right  to  compel  others 
to  recognize.  The  British  protectorate  was,  I  repeat, 
entirely  disarmed  by  the  treaty.  How  is  it  possible  for 
Great  Britain  to  protect  if  she  cannot  occupy,  or  fortify, 
or  assume  any  dominion  whatever  in  any  part  of  the 
territory?  She  is  equally  prohibited,  in  my  opinion, 
from  occupying  for  the  purpose  of  protection,  or  protect- 
ing for  the  purpose  of  occupation.  If  she  observes  the 
treaty,  her  protectorate  stands  (as  you  once  well  said 
in  a  diplomatic  note)  ''the  shadow  of  a  name." 

30 
Clarendon  to  Buchanan 

May  2,  1854. 
''Colonize,  fortify,  occupy,  and  assume  or  exercise  do- 
minion over, ' '  is  there  any  of  these  terms  which  excludes 
the  right  of  protection,  although  each  of  them  limits  its 
capability?  Defending  or  protecting  is  a  temporary  act 
of  friendship;  occupying,  colonizing,  fortifying,  or  ac- 
quiring sovereignty  are  acts  which  have  a  permanent 
result. 

31 

Buchanan  to  Clarendon 

July  22,  1854. 
The  government  of  the  United  States  .  .  .  stands  upon 
the  treaty  which  it  has  already  concluded,  firmly  believ- 
ing that,  under  this,  Great  Britain  should  more  than 
four  years  ago,  have  ceased  to  occupy  or  exercise  domin- 
ion over  the  whole  and  every  part  of  the  Mosquito  coast. 

219 


Appendix  C 

32 

Clarendon  to  Buchanan 

Sept.  28,  1855. 
[The  Treaty]  was  merely  prospective  in  its  operation 
and  did  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the  state  of  things 
existing  at  the  time  of  its  conclusion.  If  it  had  been 
intended  to  do  so,  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  in 
conformity  with  what  the  undersigned  believes  to  be  the 
universal  rule  in  regard  to  instruments  of  this  nature, 
it  would  have  contained  in  specific  terms  a  renunciation 
on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  of  the  possessions  and  rights 
which  up  to  the  conclusion  of  the  convention,  she  had 
claimed  to  maintain,  and  such  renunciation  would  not 
have  been  left  as  a  mere  matter  of  inference. 

33 

Buchanan  to  Clarendon 

October  4,  1855. 
It  appears  to  the  undersigned  that  an  engagement  by  a 
party  not  "to  occupy  or  exercise  any  dominion"  over 
territory  of  which  that  party  is  in  actual  possession,  at 
the  date  of  the  engagement  is  equivalent  in  all  respects 
to  an  agreement  to  withdraw.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, this  is  not  "a  mere  matter  of  inference";  be- 
cause the  one  proposition  is  necessarily  and  inseparably 
involved  in  the  other,  and  they  are  merely  alternative 
modes  of  expressing  the  same  idea.  In  such  a  case,  to 
withdraw  is  not  to  occupy, — and  not  to  occupy  is  nec- 
essarily to  withdraw. 

34 

Buchanan  to  Marcy 

Nov.  9,  1855. 
[Clarendon    said] — about    these    Central    American 
220 


Appendix  C 

questions — ''the  best  mode  of  settling  them  is  arbitra- 
tion"— I  replied  there  was  nothing  to  arbitrate.  He 
said  the  true  construction  of  the  Treaty  was  a  proper 
subject  for  arbitration.  I  told  him  I  did  not  consider 
it  a  question  for  construction  at  all — the  language  was 
plain  and  explicit,  and  I  thought  this  would  be  the  almost 
unanimous  opinion  of  the  American  people. 

35 

Seward  in  Senate 

Dec.  31,  1855. 

....  the  British  government  is  now  stated  by  the 
President  to  assume  the  ground  that  the  stipulation  not 
to  colonize  or  to  occupy  was  prospective  only  and  not 
present  or  actual.  That  strikes  me  as  being  a  new  sug- 
gestion, a  new  idea,  entirely  different  from  that  which 
I  entertained  as  a  member  of  the  Senate  when  that  treaty 
was  ratified  and  when  I  defended  it. 

....  there  was  a  criticism  made  upon  the  language 
of  the  treaty,  in  regard  to  occupation,  colonization,  and 
dominion.  The  suggestion  was  barely  made  that  there 
might  be  an  equivoke  in  that  treaty;  and  the  moment 
that  it  was  made,  I  remember,  the  article  was  read,  and 
every  honorable  member  of  the  Senate  agreed  that  it 
was  impossible  that  a  doubt  could  ever  be  raised  on  that 
question. 

36 

Clayton  in  Senate 

December  31,  1855. 
.  .  .  Prospective  in  its  operation !     I  never  dreamed  of 
such  a  thing.     Merely  prospective !    Does  any  man  sup- 
pose that  I,  in  the  possession  of  my  senses,  could  have 
entered  into  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  to  allow  her  to 

221 


Appendix  C 

remain  in  possession  of  the  whole  of  this  isthmus,  and 
to  prohibit  my  own  countrymen  from  taking  possession 
of  it,  leaving  her  there  undisturbed?  .  .  .  They  were 
not  to  exercise  dominion  thereafter,  but  they  were  to 
exercise  the  dominion  they  had  before.  How  can  that 
be?  The  language  of  the  treaty  was  that  they  should 
thereafter  exercise  no  dominion,  and  no  matter  what 
dominion  they  might  have  had  before,  they  were  com- 
pelled by  the  plain  terms  of  the  treaty  to  abandon  it. 

Sir,  it  is  wonderful  that  a  nation  so  enlightened  and 
of  such  standing  in  the  world  as  the  people  of  Great 
Britain  should  have  consented  to  permit  any  ministry 
to  stand  in  a  controversy  upon  such  points  as  these.  I 
do  not  believe  the  British  people  understand  their  posi- 
tion. I  know  that  Lord  Palmerston  has  heretofore  car- 
ried things  there  with  a  high  hand;  but  I  think  that 
when  the  British  people  do  understand  that  they  are  to 
be  degraded  and  disgraced  by  such  miserable  quibbling 
and  equivocating  as  this  they  will  turn  their  backs  on 
Lord  Palmerston  and  his  cabinet,  and  any  other  set  of 
men  that  have  such  an  estimate  of  what  is  due  to  British 
honor.  I  do  not  believe  Englishmen  have  sunk  so  low. 
Depend  upon  it,  there  is  some  misunderstanding  among 
Englishmen  on  this  subject.  It  is  impossible  that  the 
people  of  England  can  comprehend  it.  If  they  do,  they 
will  not  suffer  such  miserable  special  pleading  to  dis- 
honor them,  and  force  us  at  last  into  open  war  with  them. 

37 

FooTE  IN  Senate 

February  15,  1856. 
It  was  understood  by  the  committee ;  it  was  understood 
by  the  Senate;  it  was  understood  by  every  member  of 
the  Senate,  I  venture  to  say,  that  the  effect  of  the  treaty 

222 


Appendix  C 

was  sucli  as  to  impose  upon  England  the  obligation 
forthwith  to  resign  all  her  possessions  in  Central  Amer- 
ica; and  with  that  understanding,  and  upon  that  alone, 
the  treaty  was  ratified.  I  submit  to  any  Senator  here, 
then  a  member  of  the  body,  if  it  be  not  so  [A  general 
assent  was  signified].  The  only  question  which  after- 
wards arose  was  whether  or  not  it  embraced  the  British 
settlement  at  the  Belize  ? 
Append.  Cong,  Gldbe,  Feb.  5,  1856,  p.  83. 


38 

Clayton  in  Senate 

June  19,  1856. 
...  as  a  general  rule  I  would  rather  arbitrate  than 
go  to  war;  but  not  in  such  a  case  as  this  unless  the 
referees  should  be  eminent  and  impartial  civilians  se- 
lected by  ourselves.  ...  A  government  which  is  capable 
of  so  grossly  outraging  all  the  rules  of  interpretation 
as  they  have  shown  themselves  to  be,  in  my  judgment 
would  not  hesitate,  if  the  award  were  made  against 
them,  to  declare  that  they  would  not  abide  by  the  award, 
on  some  technical  objection  or  other,  and  thus  throw  us 
back  precisely  where  we  were  before,  still  more  seriously 
jeopardizing  the  relations  between  the  two  countries. 


39 

Clarendon  to  Dallas 

June  26,  1856. 
.  .  .  The  treaty  therefore  does  not  require  existing 
protection  to  cease,  but  only  forbids  using  such  pro- 
tection for  certain  specified  purposes.  .  .  . 

223 


Appendix  C 

40 

Marcy  to  Dallas 

June  26,  1856. 
It  would  have  been  yielding  to  a  delusive  expectation 
and  laying  the  foundation  of  future  difficulties,  to  rely 
upon  a  stipulation  for  the  "neutrality"  of  a  ship  canal, 
as  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  if 
either  of  them  was  to  be  in  the  military  occupation  or 
to  have  political  control,  under  whatever  name  or  form, 
of  the  coast  of  Nicaragua,  on  either  ocean,  or  of  insular 
positions  [such  as  the  Bay  Islands]  capable  in  a  military 
sense  of  commanding  the  waters  adjacent  to  Nicaragua. 
The  supposition  of  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  in  such 
circumstances  would  be  just  as  absurd  as  to  imagine 
that  any  mere  words  of  a  treaty  could  communicate  to 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  equality  of  rela- 
tion, political  or  military,  to  the  Erie  Canal  in  the  state 
of  New  York  or  to  the  Bridgewater  Canal  in  England. 


41 

President  Buchanan  to  Congress 
First  Message,  Dec.  8,  1857 

.  .  .  According  to  their  [the  British]  construction, 
the  treaty  does  no  more  than  simply  prohibit  them  from 
extending  their  possessions  in  Central  America  beyond 
the  present  limits.  It  is  not  too  much  to  assert  that, 
if  in  the  United  States  the  Treaty  had  been  considered 
susceptible  of  such  a  construction,  it  never  would^  have 
been  negociated  under  the  authority  of  the  President, 
nor  would  it  have  received  the  approbation  of  the 
Senate.  .  .  . 

224 


Appendix  D 

D 

Full  Powers  op  the  Negocutors  of  the  Clayton- 
BuLWER  Treaty 

Victoria  Keg. 

Victoria,  by  the  Grace  of  God,  Queen  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the 
Faith  &ca  &ca  &ca.  To  All  and  Singular  to  whom  these 
Presents  shall  come,  Greeting!  Whereas  for  the  better 
treating  of  and  arranging  certain  matters  which  are 
now  in  discussion,  or  which  may  come  into  discussion, 
between  Us  and  Our  Good  Friends  the  United  States  of 
America,  We  have  judged  it  expedient  to  invest  a  fit 
Person  with  full  Power  to  conduct  such  discussion  on 
Our  Part.  Know  Ye  therefore,  that  We,  reposing  es- 
pecial Trust  and  Confidence  in  the  Wisdom,  Loyalty, 
Diligence,  and  Circumspection  of  Our  Right  Trusty  and 
Well  beloved  Councillor  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer, 
Knight  Commander  of  the  Most  Honourable  Order  of 
the  Bath,  Our  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  to  Our  said  Good  Friends,  have  named, 
made,  constituted,  and  appointed,  as  We  do  by  these 
Presents  name,  make,  constitute,  and  appoint  him  Our 
undoubted  Commissioner,  Procurator  and  Plenipoten- 
tiary :  Giving  to  him  all  manner  of  Power  and  Authority 
to  treat,  adjust,  and  conclude,  with  such  Minister  or 
Ministers  as  may  be  vested  with  similar  Power  and  Au- 
thorit}^  on  the  part  of  Our  said  Good  Friends,  any 
Treaties,  Conventions,  or  Agreements  that  may  tend  to 
the  attainment  of  the  abovementioned  end,  and  to  sign 
for  Us  in  our  Name,  every  thing  so  agreed  upon  and  con- 
cluded, and  to  do  and  transact  all  such  other  matters 
as  may  appertain  to  the  finishing  of  the  aforesaid  Work, 
in  as  ample  manner  and  form,  and  with  equal  force  and 
efficacy,  as  We  Ourselves  could  do,  if  Personally  Present : 

225 


Appendix  D 

— Engaging  and  Promising  upon  Our  Royal  Word,  that 
whatever  things  shall  be  so  transacted  and  concluded  by 
Our  said  Commissioner,  Procurator,  and  Plenipotentiary, 
shall  be  agreed  to,  acknowledged,  and  accepted  by  Us 
in  the  fullest  manner,  and  that  We  will  never  suffer, 
either  in  the  whole  or  in  part,  any  person  whatsoever 
to  infringe  the  same,  or  act  contrary  thereto,  as  far  as 
lies  in  Our  Power.  In  Witness  whereof  We  have  caused 
the  Great  Seal  of  Our  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  to  be  affixed  to  these  Presents,  which  We 
have  signed  with  our  Royal  Hand.  Given  at  Our  Court 
at  Buckingham  Palace,  the  Sixth  day  of  March,  in  the 
Year  of  Our  Lord  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred  and 
Fifty,  and  in  the  Thirteenth  Year  of  Our  Reign. 

(Seal) 


Zachart  Taylor 

presroent  op  the  united  states  of  america, 
To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  Greeting! 

Know  Ye,  That,  for  the  purpose  of  confirming  between 
the  United  States  and  Her  Britannic  Majesty  perfect 
harmony  and  good  correspondence,  I  have  invested  John 
M.  Clayton,  Secretary  of  State,  with  full  power  and 
authority,  and  also  with  general  and  special  command, 
to  meet  and  confer  with  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  ac- 
credited to  this  Government  as  Envoy  Extraordinary 
and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Her  said  Majesty,  and 
with  him  to  agree,  treat,  consult,  and  negotiate  of  and 
concerning,  a  ship  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pa- 
cific Oceans  by  the  way  of  the  river  San  Juan  de  Nic- 
aragua and  Lakes  Nicaragua  and  Managua,  or  either  of 
them,  and  communications  either  by  canal  or  railway 
across  the  Isthmus  which  connects  North  and  South 

226 


Appendix  E 

America,  and  concerning  the  States  of  Central  America 
and  the  Mosquito  Coast,  and  all  matters  and  things  con- 
nected with  those  subjects,  and  to  conclude  and  sign  a 
Convention  touching  the  premises,  for  my  final  ratifica- 
tion, with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  if  such  advice  and  consent  be  given. 
In  testimony  whereof  I  have  caused  the  seal  of  the 
United  States  to  be  hereunto  affixed.     Given 
under  my  hand  at  the  City  of  Washington, 
L.  s.      the  sixth  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifty, 
and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States 

the  seventy-fourth.  -  ^    . 

Z.  Taylor. 

By  the  President : 

John  M.  Clayton, 

Secretary  of  State. 


E 
TREATY  OF  WASHINGTON,  1871 

Proposed  Additional  Article  With  Amendments 

The  parts  in  italics  were  to  be  replaced  by  the  clauses 
appearing  opposite  to  them  in  brackets. 

Original   form  Amendments 

Whereas  the  Government  of 
her  Britannic  Majesty  has  con- 
tended, in  the  recent  corre- 
spondence with  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  as  fol- 
lows; namely:  that  such  in- 
direct claims  as  those  for  the 
national  losses  stated  in  the 
Case  presented  on  the  part  of 
the  G<)yenmient  of  the  United 

227 


Appendix  E 


states,  to  the  Tribunal  of  Ar- 
bitration at  Geneva,  to  have 
been  sustained  in  the  loss  in 
the  transfer  of  the  American 
Commercial  marine  to  the 
British  flag;  the  enhanced 
payments  of  insurance;  the 
prolongation  of  the  war,  and 
the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to 
the  cost  of  the  war  and  the 
suppression  of  the  rebellion — 
firstly  were  not  included  in  fact 
m  the  Treaty  of  Washington, 
and  further,  and  secondly, 
should  not  be  admitted  in  prin- 
ciple as  growing  out  of  the  acts 
committed  by  particular  ves- 
sels alleged  to  have  been  en- 
abled to  commit  depredations 
upon  the  shipping  of  a  belliger- 
ent, by  reason  of  such  a  uant 
of  due  diligence  in  the  per- 
formance of  neutral  obliga- 
tions as  that  which  is  imputed 
by  the  United  States  to  Great 
Britain,  and 

WTiereas  the  Government  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesty  has  also 
declared  that  the  principle  in- 
volved in  the  second  of  the 
contentions,  hereinbefore  set 
forth,  \mll  guide  their  conduct 
in  the  future;  and 


Whereas  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  while  adhering 
to  his  contention  that  the  said 
claims  were  included  in  the 
Treaty,  adopts  for  the  future 
the  principle  contained  in   the 


[commercial    American] 
[payment] 

[in] 


[want] 
[performances  of  the] 


[the  United  States  has  con- 
tended that  the  said  claims  are 
included   in   the  treaty;    and 

Whereas  both  governments 
adopt  for  the  future  the  prin- 
ciple that  claims  for  remote  or 
indirect  losses  should  not  be 
admitted  as  the  result  of  fail- 
ure to  observe  neutral  obliga- 
tions] 


228 


Appendix  E 


second  of  the  said  contentions, 
80  far  as  to  declare  that  it  will 
hereafter  guide  the  conduct  of 
the  government  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  tico  countries 
are  therefore  agreed  in  this  re- 
spect : 

In  consideration  thereof,  the 
President  of  the  United  States, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate  thereof, 
consents  that  he  will  make  no 
claim  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  in  respect  of  indirect 
losses  as  aforesaid,  before  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  at 
Geneva.i 

iFor,  Bel.  of  U.  8.,  Geneva  ArUtration  11,  500. 


[both  governments  in  their  re- 
lations with  each  other;  now, 
therefore,] 


[consent] 


229 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(A  star  (*)  indicates  that  the  work  includes  a  bibliography) . 

American  State  Papers,  etc. 

Accounts  and  Papers,  State  Papers. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers. 

History  of  the  United  States  of  America  from  the 
Adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  to  the  end  of  the 
Sixteenth  Congress*  (Rev.  ed.  1877-1880).  Richard 
Hildreth. 

History  of  the  United  States  from  the  Compromise  of 
1850  (1906).    J.  F.  Rhodes. 

History  of  the  United  States  of  America  during  the 
first  Administration  of  James  Madison  (1891).  Henry 
Adams. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  (1885).     G.  F.  Tucker. 

The  Inter-Oceanic  Canal  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
(1880).     Alfred  Williams. 

Thirty  Years'  View  (1862).     T.  H.  Benton. 

The  British  Empire  and  the  United  States  (1914). 
W.  A.  Dunning. 

The  United  States  and  International  Arbitration 
(1892).    J.B.Moore. 

The  Pride  of  Britatmia  Humbled,  etc.,  (1815).  Wil- 
liam Cobbett. 

The  Diplomatic  History  of  the  Administrations  of 
Washington  and  Adams  (1857).     W.  H.  Trescott. 

Digest  of  International  Law  (1906).    J.  B.  Moore. 

American  Diplomacy  (1905).*    J.  B.  Moore. 

American  Diplomacy  (1915).      C.  R.  Fish. 
231 


Bibliography 

A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy  (1900).  J.  W. 
Foster. 

The  United  States  as  a  World  Power  (1908).  A.  C. 
Coolidge. 

Historia  de  la  Diplomacia  americana,  politica  inter- 
nacional,  de  los  Estados  Unidos  (1904).    M.  G.  Merou. 

Diplomatic  Relations  of  the  United  States  and  Latin- 
America  (1900).    J.  H.  Latane. 

The  United  States  in  our  own  Times,  a  History  from 
Reconstruction  to  Expansion   (1903).    E.  B.  Andrews. 

American  Diplomatic  Questions  (1901).  J.  B.  Hen- 
derson, Jr. 

Common  Sense  in  Foreign  Policy  (1913).  Sir  Harry 
Johnston. 

Treaties,  etc.,  .  .  .  United  States  of  America  and 
other  Powers  (1776-1909).  Sen.  Doc.  357,  2  Sess.,  61 
Cong. 

Id,  (1910-1913),  Sen.  Doe.  1063,  3  Sess.,  62  Cong. 

Nouveau  Recueil  general  de  Traites.  G.  F.  de 
Martens. 

Studies  in  International  Law  (1898).    T.  E.  Holland. 

Treaty-making  Power  of  the  United  States  (1902).  C. 
H.  Butler. 

The  Westward  Movement  (1897).     Justin  Winsor. 

The  British  Evacuation  of  the  United  States  (1896). 
H.  C.  Osgood. 

Canadian  Violation  of  Treaty  of  Washington,  Sen.  Re- 
ports, 1  Sess.,  53  Cong.,  vol.  10  (1890). 

The  Neutrality  of  the  American  Lakes  and  Anglo- 
American  Relations  {189S).    J.  M.  Callahan. 

War  Vessels  on  the  Lakes.  H.  R.  Doe.  471,  1  Sess., 
56  Cong.  (1900). 

Use  of  Welland  Canal.  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  118  and  406, 
1  Sess.,  50  Cong.  (1888). 

Interoceanic  Canals.  Sen.  Rep.  1337,  Part  3,  2  Sefss., 
56  Cong.  (1900). 

232 


Bibliography 

Correspondence  .  ,  .  Interoceanic  Ship  Canal.  Sen. 
Doc.  161,  and  237,  1  Sess.,  56  Cong.  (1900). 

Proposed  Interoceanic  Canal.  Sen.  Doe.  268,  1  Sess., 
56  Cong.  (1900). 

History  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  (1899).*  I. 
D.  Travis. 

British  Rule  in  Central  America,  or  a  Sketch  of  Mos- 
quito History  (1895).     Id. 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  M.  W.  Hazeltine,  in  N. 
Am.  Rev.,  vol.  165  (1899). 

Id.  J.  D.  Harding,  Queen's  advocate,  Ex.  Doc.  13, 
1  Sess.,  33  Cong.  (1854). 

Id.    Reverdy  Johnson,  id. 

Id.    Sen.  Rep.  1649,  1  Sess.,  56  Cong.  (1900). 

Id.     Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  12,  2  Sess.,  32  Cong.  (1853). 

Id.     Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  82,  1  Sess.,  34  Cong.  (1856). 

Id.     H.  R.  Report  1121,  2  Sess.,  46  Cong.  (1880). 

Mosquito  Territory.  Article  in  Fullarton's  Gazetteer 
of  the  World  {ca  1855). 

Central  America.    Id. 

Memoir  of  Abbott  Lawrence  (1884).     H.  A.  Hill. 

Les  cinq  Republiques  latines  de  VAmerique  Centrale 
(ca  1912).    Maurice  de  Perigny. 

Illustrated  History  of  the  Panama  Railroad,  together 
with  a  Traveler's  Guide  and  Business  Man's  Handbook 
for  the  Panama  Railroad  and  its  Connections  with  Eu- 
rope, the  United  States,  the  North  and  South  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  Coasts,  China,  Australia,  and  Japan,  by  Sail 
and  Steam  (1862).     F.  N.  Otis. 

Resena  historica  de  Centro- America  (1878-1887). 
Lorenzo  Montuf ar. 

Efemerides  de  los  Hechos  notables  acaecidos  en  la 
Republica  de  Centro- America  desde  el  ana  de  1821  hasta 
el  de  1842  (1844).    Alejandro  Marue. 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
(1882) .     Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  194, 1  Sess.,  47  Cong. 

233 


Bibliography 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  and  ihe  Hay-Pauncefote 
Treaty  (1901).  Cong.  Rec.  XXXV,  Part  1,  Page  13 
et  seq. 

The  Disputes  with  America  (1856).  Sir.  H.  L.  Bul- 
wer,  Quart.  Rev.,  Vol.  99. 

Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  (1856).  Sir  H. 
L.  Bulwer,  Edinh.  Rev.,  Vol.  104. 

Biographical  and  Critical  Essays  (1858,  1873,  1874). 
Abraham  Hayward. 

History  of  Central  America  (1883).     H.  B.  Bancroft. 

States  of  Central  America  (1858).     E.  G.  Squier. 

Notes  on  Central  America  (1855).     E.  G.  Squier. 

Central  America  and  the  Transit  between  the  Oceans 
(1850).     M.  B.  Sampson,  Westminster  Rev.,  April. 

Bosquejo  de  la  Repuhlica  de  Costa  Rica  seguido  de 
Apuntamientos  para  su  Historia  (1851).     Felipe  Molina. 

Anglo-American  Isthmian  Diplomacy,  1815-1915 
( 1916 ) .     Mary  W.  Williams. 

An  Account  of  the  British  Settlement  of  Honduras, 
io  which  are  added  Sketches  of  the  Manners  and  Cus- 
toms of  the  Mosquito  Indians,  preceded  by  a  Journal 
of  a  Voyage  to  the  Mosquito  Shore  (1809).  George  Hen- 
derson. 

Bulletin  of  American  Geographical  Society,  XXXII, 
No.  4  (1900). 

Historical  Geography  of  the  British  Colonies  (1890). 
C.  P.  Lucas. 

Ocean  to  Ocean:  an  Account,  personal  and  historical, 
of  Nicaragua  and  its  People  (1902).     J.  W.  G.  Walker. 

Memoirs  of  the  Mexican  Revolution:  including  a  Nar- 
rative of  the  Expedition  of  General  Xavier  Mina,  with 
some  Observations  on  the  Practicability  of  opening  a 
Commerce  between  the  Pacific  and  Atlantic  Oceans 
through  the  Mexican  Isthmus  in  the  Province  of  Oaxaca, 
and  at  the  Lake  of  Nicaragua,  and  on  the  future  Im- 
portance of  such  Commerce  to  the  civilized  World  and 

234 


Bibliography 

more  especially  to  the  United  States   (1820).    W.  D. 
Robinson. 

A  succinct  View  and  Analysis  of  authentic  Informa- 
tion extant  in  original  Works  on  the  Practicability  of 
joining  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Oceans  by  a  Ship  Canal 
across  the  Isthmus  of  America  (1825).    R.  B.  Pitman. 

Correspondence  in  Relation  to  Central  America.  H. 
R.,  Ex.  Doc.  75,  31  Cong.,  1  Sess.  (1850) ;  Sen.  Ex.  Doc. 
27,  32  Cong.,  2  Sess.  (1853). 

British  Policy  in  Central  America.  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  44, 
32  Cong.,  2  Sess.  (1853)  ;  Appendix  to  Cong.  Globe,  34 
Cong.  3  Sess.  (1857),  p.  176;  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  194,  47 
Cong.,  1  Sess.  (1882)  ;  H.  Ex.  Doc,  50  Cong.,  2  Sess., 
Vol.  1  (1888-1889),  p.  759  et  seq.;  id.,  51  Cong.,  1  Sess., 
vol.  1,  p.  468  et  seq.;  id.,  53  Cong.,  2  Sess.  (1893-1894), 
vol.  1,  p.  53. 

The  Gate  of  the  Pacific  (1863).    Bedford  Pirn. 

Belacion  descriptiva  de  los  Mapas,  Pianos,  etc.,  de  la 
Audiencia  y  Capitania  general  de  Guatemala  existentes 
en  el  Archivo  general  de  Indias  (1903).    P.  T.  Lanzas. 

Moskito  (1899).     H.  G.  Schneider. 

The  Bay  Islands.  Sen.  Ex.  Doc.  12,  2  Sess.,  32  Cong. 
(1853). 

Mr.  Fish  and  the  Alabama  Claims  (1893).  J.  C.  B. 
Davis. 

Reminiscences  of  the  Geneva  Tribunal  of  Arbitration 
(1911).     F.  H.  Hackett. 

Letters  and  Diaries  of  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  (1890) . 
Andrew  Lang. 

De  VInfluence  prochaine  des  Etats-TJnis  sur  la  Poli- 
tique de  VEurope.    A  de  M. 

Letter  in  Answer  to  the  Eon.  John  M.  Clayton,  Sec- 
retary of  State,  on  Intermarvne  Communications  (1850). 
G.  W.  Hughes. 

Memoir  of  John  M.  Clayton  (Papers  of  Hist.  Soc.  of 
Delaware,  vol.  I,  no.  IV).    J.  P.  Comegys. 

235 


Bibliography 

Some  Maxims  of  the  late  Lord  Balling  and  Bulwer 
(Nineteenth  Century,  vol.  56,  p.  262). 

Retrospections  of  an  active  Life  (1909-1913).  John 
Bigelow. 


THE  END 


236 


3  IN  THE 

852 


frioijcjuif. 
S>Kore 


y^ 


r^ 


iV_ 


BRITISH  SETTLEMENTS  AND  DOMINIONS  IN  THE 
CARIBBEAN  SEA  IN  1850  AND  IN  1852 


^^p    OF   MEX'CO 


l'*;) 


-A 


[E  MOSQUITO  SHORE 

T   CEASED   TO   BE   A  BRITISH  PROTECTORATE 


II 


I 


loo  loo 

I  I 


0 


AFTER 


2^00  ^00  Kilometers 


5o  »pO  1^0         Zoo   Miles 


THE  MOSQUITO  SHORE 

BEFORE   AND   AFTER   IT    CEASED   TO   BE   A   BRITISH  PROTECTORATE 


I 


^oo  Itao  Kilometers 


100  1^0        Zoo   Miles 


Ill 


BRITISH  HOXDrRAS 

FTEE  IT  BECAME  A  BRITISH  POSSESSION 


IT 


J= 


^ 


AFTER 


2.O0 

-d — 


500 


^^  Kilometers 


i» 


f-r-T-r 


=U 


100 


••So 


^00  Miles 


BRITISH  HONDURAS 
BEFORE  AND  AFTER  IT  BECAME  A  BRITISH 
BEFORE  AFTER 


n&Y     /1786 


2.00  jpo  hoo  Kilometers 


'?o         ZjO"  Mil 


INDEX 


Aberdeen,  Lord,  53. 

Adams,  C.  F.,  167. 

Agreement,  Rush-Bagot  (1818), 
32-34,   183. 

Alabama,  Confederate  cruiser, 
165. 

Alabama  Claims,  165;  arbitra- 
tion of,  166-174. 

Alarm,  British  war  vessel,  56. 

Albemarle,  Duke  of,  51. 

Albert,  Prince,  husband  of 
Queen  Victoria,   179. 


Austria,  Emperor  of,  arbitrator, 
102;  ambassador  of,  selects 
commissioner,   177-179. 

Aztecs,  conquest  of,  40. 


Baily,  John,  his  map,  54. 
Balise.     See  British  Honduras. 
Bancroft,  George,  Castellon  to, 

205. 

Barbaretta,    Bay    Island,    149; 

made  part  of  colony,   154. 

Alexander,  Emperor  of  Russia,      Bay  Islands,  a  British  base,  62, 

arbitrator,  25,  31.  153;  controversy  over,  147, 

American    Isthmus.     See    Isth-  153-160;    history    of,    149- 

mu8.  154,    157.     See  Roatan. 

Anglo- Venezuelan        boimdary.      Bayard,  secretary  of   state,  to 

143.  Phelps,  103. 

Arbitration,    Jay    Treaty,    18-      Beaconstield,  Lord,  70. 

21,   184;   Treaty  of  Ghent,      Belise  River.     S^q  Belize  River. 
23,  24;  convention  of  1823,      Belize.     See  British  Honduras. 
26-32,    184;    convention   of      Belize  River,   110,   113. 
1826,  32;  at  The  Hague  in      Benton,  T.  H.,  10  n.,  72. 
1910,    35;    Mosquito   ques-      Bernard,    Professor    Montague, 
-"       "  •  167. 

Billy  Bowlegs,   202. 

Blackfeet,  Indians,  202. 

Blewfields.     See   Bluefields. 

Bluefields,  capital,  43,  204, 
208;  Lagoon,  55;  river, 
211. 

Bonacca.     See  Quanaja. 

Bonnycastle,  on  Island  of  Bon- 
acca, 155. 

Borland,  senator,  on  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  146;  Mar- 
cy  to,  218. 


tion  (1881),  102;  of  inter- 
pretation, declined  bv  U. 
S.,  108,  220,  221,  223;  of 
Anglo- Venezuelan  dispute, 
143;  Treaty  of  Washing- 
ton (1871),  35,  166-179, 
184,  227-229;  claims,  com- 
mission (1853),  184;  other 
Civil  War  claims,  185; 
claims  against  U.  S. 
(1896),  185;  pecuniary 
claims   (1912),  185. 


237 


Index 


Brazil,  claims  on,  129;  Em- 
peror of,  167. 

British  America,  Indians  of, 
202.     See  Canada. 

British  Honduras,  44,  45,  109- 
115;  superintendent  of,  46, 
151,  153;  a  British  base, 
62;  discovery  of  country, 
109;  capital  of,  109;  sov- 
ereignty of.  111,  114,  117, 
149;  asks  to  be  made  a 
colony,  113;  boundaries  of , 
113,  114,  117,  139,  140, 
144-147,  156;  made  a  col- 
ony, 113,115,148;  depend- 
encies of,  117,  119,  138, 
147,  155-157;  title  to,  118, 
123,  124,  125;  partly  in 
Central  America,  147. 

Buchanan,  to  Clarendon,  53  n., 
97  n.,  220;  to  Hise,  62,  63; 
to  McClernand,  105  n.:  sec- 
retary of  state,  62,  130;  to 
Marcy,  220,  221;  Presi- 
dent, to  Congress,  148,  179, 
224;  Clarendon  to,  142, 
219,   220. 

Buckatora  Lagoon,  46. 

Bulwer,  H.  L.,  in  Quarterly 
Rev.,  54  n.;  career  of,  69- 
72;  presented  to  President 
Taylor,  69,  76-78;  maxims 
of,  71,  74;  books  by,  75; 
on  Talleyrand,  75;  purpose 
in  U.  S.,  76,  78,  92-94; 
confers  vs^ith  Clayton,  78, 
79;  forwards  pro  jet  of 
treaty  to  Palmerston,  79; 
exchanges  ratifications  with 
Clayton,  116-138,  219:  un- 
derstanding as  to  British 
Honduras,  144,  145;  as  to 
Roatan,  159;  on  Treaty  of 
Washington,  168,  169 -/and 
Monroe   Doctrine,    199   n. : 


238 


full  power  of,  213,  225, 
226 ;  to  Palmerston,  79,  90, 
91,  99,  125,  140,  141;  to 
Clayton,  116,  117,  122,  123, 
196,  199,  209-211,  212-215; 
to  Webster,  125 ;  in  Edinb. 
Rev.,  125,  126;  in  Quarter- 
ly Rev.,  54  n.,  126;  Clay- 
ton to,  196,  197,  198,  201, 
208,  211-214,  216. 
Butler,  Senator,  121. 

Calhoun,  J.  C,  72. 

California,  problem  of,  38,  39; 
acquired   by    U.    S.,   58. 

Canada,  boundaries  of,  9 ;  trade 
of,  with  Indians,  16;  fight- 
ing in,  32;  British  valua- 
tion of,  37;  treaty  dispute 
over,  174. 

Canal  across  Central  America. 
See    Trans-isthmian   canal. 

Caribbean  Sea,  pirates  in,  40; 
boundary  of  Nicaragua,  52. 

Carmen,  island,  109. 

Cass,  senator,  on  Clayton-Bul- 
wer  Treaty,  146,   158. 

Castellon  to  Bancroft,  205. 

Center  America,  48-50,  52.  See 
Central  America. 

Central  America,  Federation  of, 
48-50,  63;  use  of  term,  49, 
50,  120,  139-147,  155,  156; 
governor  general  of,  51,  52 ; 
limits  of,  52,  140-143;  inde- 
pendence  of,  150.  See  Gua- 
temala. 
states,  etc.,  of,  49,  62,  65,  86, 
98,  138,  139,  140  n.,  150, 
152,  216,  219,  227;  ready 
for  annexation  to  U.  S., 
205,  206. 

Chagres  River,  as  boundary,  58. 

Chase,  senator,  on  Clayton-Bul- 
wer  Treaty,  146, 


Index 


Chatfield,  Frederick,  49  n.,  51, 
66;  to  Orosco,  100;  to  min- 
ister of  Nicaragua,  189, 
190;  to  Secretary  of  State 
of  Los  Altos,  152;  Orosco 
to,  53  n. 

Chesapeake,  U.  S.  warship,  14. 

Clieves,  Langdon,  commissioner, 
27,  29,  30. 

Chiapas,  province  of,  40,  47. 

China,  British  possessions  in, 
37. 

Chontales,   district,    190. 

Claims  for  debts  against  Brit- 
ish subjects.  See  Arlitra- 
tion. 

Clarendon,  Lord,  130,  142,  181, 
220;  to  Crampton,  British 
minister,  Washington,  141, 
217;  to  Buchanan,  142, 
219,  220;  to  Dallas,  142, 
223;  Buchanan  to,  53  n. 

Clay,  Henry,  72;  to  Vaughn, 
31;  to  Williams,  49;  to 
House  of  Rep.,  49. 

Clayton,  J.  M.,  secretary  of 
state,  his  career,  64,  72-75; 
his  canal  policy,  67,  92,  93, 
105-107;  revises  Bulwer's 
presentation  address,  77 ; 
invites  Bulwer  to  confer 
with  him,  78;  full  power 
of,  128  n.,  140  n.,  157,  213, 
226,  227;  Senate  speech, 
112,  157,  158,  221,  223; 
said  to  consider  Boatan  a 
British  possession,  157, 
158;  denies  it,  id.;  views 
as  to  Bay  Islands,  158, 
159;  endorses  his  counter- 
declaration,  120,  121,  126; 
understanding  as  to  Brit- 
ish Honduras,  144,  145; 
endorses  his  draft  of  note 
to  Bulwer,  208,  209;  to  G. 


239 


W.  Hughes,  39,  73;  to  Ab- 
bott Lawrence,  49,  GG,  67, 
68,  93;  to  Palmerston,  90; 
to  W.  R.  King,  117,  145; 
to  Bulwer,  118,  146,  197, 
198,  201-208,  211-214,  21G; 
to  Marcy,  126;  to  Squier, 
139  n.;  to  Crampton,  158, 
159;  to  Lawrence,  191,  193, 
216;  Crampton  to,  112, 
157,  158;  Bulwer  to,  116, 
117,  122,  123,  196,  199,209- 
211,  212-215;  Lawrence  to, 
193,  216,  217;  Johnson  to, 
218,  219. 

Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty.  See 
Treaty,  Clayton  Bulwer. 

Cleveland,  President,  176. 

Clinton,  DeWitt,  to  Van  Rens- 
selaer, 49. 

Coasting  laws  of  U.  S.,  175. 

Cockburn,    Sir   Alexander,    167. 

Coke,  Lord,  206. 

Colombia,  57.  See  New  Grana- 
da. 

Colonization,  191,  192,  205;  un- 
der Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty, 
81,  93,  96,  98,  155,  195, 
207,  208,  217,  219-221. 
See  British  Honduras.  Bay 
Islands. 

Columbus,  discovers  country  of 
British  Honduras,  109 ; 
discovers  Island  of  Roatan, 
149. 

Commission  of    1827,   32. 

Concession  (1849),  by  New 
Granada  to  U.  S.,  60. 

Concord  affair,  93. 

Conference  of  Paris,  181. 

Congress  of  U.  S.,  recommends 
measures  to  states,  11;  op- 
position of,  to  treaty,  14. 
See  Senate.  United  States. 

Convention  (1802)  21;   (1823) 


Index 


26,       183;        (1826)       32; 
(1819)    34,  183. 

Ck)rtez,  Fernando,  40. 

Costa  Rica,  province,  40,  47,  48, 
52. 
republic,  50  n.;  her  title  to 
San  Juan  River,  61;  en- 
croached upon  by  Great 
Britain,  63;  treaty  with  U. 
S.,  64,  141,  144;  sovereign- 
ty of,   192. 

Council  of  the  Indies,  40. 

Coxe,  L.  S.,  Secretary,  to  Lord 
Glenelg,  113n.;Sir  George 
Grey  to,  113,  114,  156. 

Crampton,  J.  F.,  to  Clayton, 
143,  156,  157;  to  Claren- 
don, 157,  158;  Granville  to, 
217. 

Crittenden,  senator,  158. 

Curtis,  B.  R.,  167. 

Cushing,  Caleb,   167. 

Dallas,    Marcy    to,    119,    224; 

Clarendon  to,  142. 
Dauphin  Island,  30,  31. 
Davis,  J.  C.  B.,  agent  of  U.  S., 

1G7,   172;   to  Fish,   169  n,; 

Fish  to,  169  n.,  173. 
Debts,    Claims    for.     See    ArU- 

tration. 
Delfosse,  Belgian  minister,  178, 

179. 
Detroit,  evacuation  of,   15,   18. 
Diplomacv,  66;   Clayton's,   106, 

107 ; '  British    and    U.    S., 

180-183. 
Dominion,  over  Mosquito  Coast, 

45,  53,  58;  under  Clayton- 

Bulwer  Treaty,  81,  93-101, 

107,  124,  195,  197,  207,  208, 

217-223. 
D'Orsay,  Count,  70. 
Downs,     senator,     on     Clayton- 

Bulwer  Treaty,  146. 


Drummond  Island,  23,  24. 
Dutchman's    Point,    evacuation 
of,  15. 

East  Indian  Company,  37. 

East  Indian  princes,  202. 

Eastern  Coast  of  Central  Amer- 
ica Commercial  and  Agri- 
cultural Company,  112, 113. 

England.     See  Great  Britain. 

Erie  Canal,  finance  of,  164,  224. 

Est6ban,   Prince,   Mosquito,  52. 

Evarts,  W.  M.,  167. 

Everett,  to  Fillmore,  99  n.;  to 
Senate,  130,  134. 

Express,  British  brig-of-war, 
100. 

Fillmore,  Everett  to,  99  n. 
First    Treaty    of    Peace     (1783 

and   1784).     See  Treaty. 
Fish,  senator,  158;  secretary  of 

state,     178;     to     Schenck, 

170;        to       Davis,       173; 

Schenck  to,  169,  170;  Davis 

to,  169. 
Fisher,  G.  P.,  129-131,  198;  to 

Clayton,  131. 
Fishery*^  disputes,  34-36,   177. 
Fitch,  in  Beggar's  Opera,  206. 
Fitzsimmons,  Thomas,   commis- 
sioner,  10. 
Flatheads,  Indians,   202. 
Fonseca,  Bay  (or  Gulf)  of,  61, 

66,   190. 
Foote,    Senator,    222. 
Fortification,  191 ;  under  Clay- 

ton-Buhver  Treaty,  81,  96, 

98,  124,  195,  205,  207,  217, 

219. 
Franklin,   Benjamin,   on   Peace 

of  1783,  4,  8. 
Frederic,  Prince,  Mosquito,  47. 
Frelinghuysen,      Secretary      of 

State,  138. 


240 


Indea: 


Geneva  Tribunal,   167-174. 

George  IV,  179. 

Glenelg,  Lord,  L.  S.  Coxe  to, 
113. 

Gracias  a  Dios,  Cape,  55,  58. 

Gran  Cayman,  slaves  from,  set- 
tle on  Roatan,  151. 

Grant,  President.  167,  173. 

Granville,  Lord,  172  n.;  to  Brit- 
ish representative,  Wash- 
ington, 138.  148,  149;  to 
Crampton,  217. 

Great  American  Desert,  as  an 
obstacle,  38,  39. 

Great  Britain,  her  policy,  4.  8, 
37,  38,  41,  42,  50,  *61,  62, 
75,  76,  95,  96,  105,  182, 
192;  to  compensate  for 
losses,  27.  28;  treaties,  etc., 
broken  by  (1783)  8-10, 
110,  111,  150,  183,  (1795) 
16,  17,  183,  (1815)  24-26, 
183,  (1823)  31.  183, 
(1818)   32,  183,  (1S19)   35, 

36,  183,  (1786)  110,  111, 
(1826)  112,  113,  (1850) 
115-149,  154,  157,  183, 
(1871)  172,  178,  179,  183; 
her  indifference  to  trans- 
isthmian      communication, 

37,  38,  61,  66;  conquest  of 
Jamaica,  41;  encroachment 
of,  on  Central  America,  43- 
45,  47,  50,  53,  56,  58,  59, 
107,  108-115,  147-153,  159- 
164;  contests  title  to  San 
Juan  River,  61;  acquires 
rights  from  Mexico,  112; 
acquires  sovereignty  over 
British  Honduras,'  114; 
foreign  secretary  to 
Schenck,   170.     See  Treaty. 

Greenville,  Treaty  of,  16  n. 
Grenville  to  King,  5  n.,  21  n.; 
marshall  to,  20  n.,  21  n. 

241 


Grey,  Sir  Charles,  Governor  of 
Jamaica,  56. 
Sir    George,    to    L.    S.    Coxe, 
Esq.,  113,  114,  156. 

Greytown.     See  San  Juan. 

Guadalupe  Hidalgo,   Treaty  of. 
See  Treaty. 

Guatemala,     captain-generalcy, 
40,  47. 
province,  40,  47,  48,  50. 
republic,   47,   48,   50:    bound- 
aries of,   52,  58,    110,   143, 
147;   treaty  between  U.  S. 
and,  63;  grants  charter  to 
British       Company,       112; 
surrenders  sovereignty  over 
British  Honduras,  114,  141, 
144. 
vice-royalty.  50  n. 

Guerrero,  J.,   190. 

Guillemard,  John,   commission- 
er, 19. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  12. 
Hammond,  to  Jefferson,  5;  Jef- 
ferson to,  8n.,  10  n.,  11  n., 

13  n. 
Hay-Pauncefote  Treatv,  180. 
Hayne,  R.  Y.,  72. 
Helena,  Bay  Island,  149;  made 

part  of  colony,  154. 
Hise,    Elijah,    U.    S.    agent    in 

Central  America,  63.  G4. 
Historical  Characters,  by  H.  L. 

Bulwer,  75. 
Hitchcock,  senator,   183. 
Hoare  vs.  Allen,   11  n. 
Hondo   River,    109,    112-114. 
Honduras,  province,  40.  47,  52, 

150. 
republic,  rights  of  in  Bay  of 

Fonseca,     61;      encroached 

upon  bv  Great  Britain,  63; 

treaty  with  U.  S.,  64,  190; 

part '  of    Mosquito     Coast 


Index 


transferred  to,  101 ;  to  pay 
Mosquito  Indians  $50,000, 
141,  144;  remonstrates 
against  British  encroach- 
ment, 151,  217;  under  pro- 
tection of  U.  S.,  218. 

Honduras   Bay,   110,   113. 

Hornby,  Admiral,  66. 

Hoyt  and  Heney,  firm,  196. 

Hughes,  G.  W.,  to  Clayton,  on 
trans-continental  railway, 
39,  50  n. 

Indians,  American,  16,  17,  24, 
41,  42,  202;  territorial 
rights  of,  95,  193,  202,  203. 
See  Mosquito  Indians. 

Innes,  James,  commissioner,  19. 

international  Law,  Alabama 
claims,  173,  174;  violated, 
184,  185. 

Interoceanic  canal.  See  Trans- 
isthmian  canal. 

Isthmus,  American,  49,  50,  73, 
89,  98,  222,  226,  227. 

Ikajubi,  Baron,  167. 

Italy,  King  of,  appoints  arbi- 
trator, 167. 

Jackson,  George,  commissioner, 
27,  29,  30. 
Andrew,  President,  72,  73. 

Jamaica,  conquest  of,  41;  gov- 
ernors of,  41,  43,  51,  56; 
a  British  base,  62. 

Jay  Treaty.     See  Treaty. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  to  Ham- 
mond,   5  n.,    8,    9  n.,    10  n., 

11  n.,  13. 

John  Smith  Hatfield,  law  case, 

12  n. 

Johnson,  Reverdy,  128,  137;  to 
Clayton,  128,  139  n.,  218, 
219. 

Johnson's  Gazetteer,  its  delim- 


242 


itation    of     British    Hon- 
duras, 144,  146. 

King,  Rufus,  Grenville  to,  21  n. 

W.   R.,    senator,   to   Clayton, 

118,  124,  147,  156;  Clayton 

'      to,  117,  145. 

King  in  Council,  changes  name 

of  San  Juan,  56. 
Kingston,  Canada,  175. 

Lake    Champlain,    war    vessels 
on,  32-34. 

Lake  Ontario,  war  vessels  on, 
32-34. 

Lawrence,  Abbott,  U.  S.  minis- 
ter at  London,  68;  illness 
of,  91 ;  his  canal  policy,  92; 
to  Palmerston,  192,  194; 
to  Clayton,  193,  216,  217; 
Clayton  to,  191,  193;  Pal- 
merston to,  192,  193,  216. 
Amos,  68. 

Lawrence  Scientific  School,  68. 

Leopard,  British  warship,  14. 

Leopold  I,  King  of  Belgium, 
179. 

Leopold  II,  King  of  Belgium, 
179. 

Lexington  affair,  93. 

Lieven,  Prince,  70. 

Light-House  Reef,   114. 

Livingston,  Edward,  72. 

Lord  Nelson,  British  schooner, 
185. 

Los  Altos,  province,  afterwards 
state,  48;  remonstrates  to- 
gether with  Salvador,  151; 
Chatfield  to  Secretary  of 
State  of,  152. 

MacDonald,  superintendent, 

British  Honduras,  114;  oc- 
cupies Roatan,  152,  153. 


Index 


Macdonald,  Thomas,  commis- 
sioner, 19,  20. 

Machuca  Rapids,  San  Juan 
Kiver,  61. 

Mackie,  Dr.,  Department  of 
State,   131. 

Mackinac.  See  Michilimacki- 
nac. 

Managua,  Lake,  80,  226. 

Marcy  to  Borland,  218;  to  Dal- 
las, 224. 

Marshall,  John,  Secretary  of 
State,  to  Grenville,  21  n. 

Mason,  senator,  on  Clavton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  146 ; 
on  British  diplomacy, 
180. 

Mauprat,  novel  by  George  Sand, 
72. 

McClernand,  Buchanan  to, 
105  n. 

McTavish,  John,  arbitrator,  27. 

Matagalpa,   district,   190. 

Maximilian,  178. 

Melbourne,  Lord,  70,  71. 

Mexico,  territory  of,  40,  48  n., 
110,  112,  114,  144;  inde- 
pendence of,  47;  rights  of 
Spain  descended  upon.  111; 
rights  acquired  from,  by 
Great  Britain,  112;  U.  S. 
and,  200. 

Miami,  Fort,  9;  evacuation  of, 
15. 

Michigan,  war  vessel,  33,  34. 

Michilimackinac,  8;  evacuation 
of,  15,  23. 

Mico  River,  43. 

Miller,  E.  H.,  196  n. 

Mississippi  River,  as  obstacle, 
38. 

Monroe,  President,  proclama- 
tion by,  33. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  22,  202; 
against  the  U-  S.,  X05 ;  con- 


travention of,  147;  Bulwer 
and,  199  n. 

Montezumas,  domain  of,  40. 

Morat,  Bay  Island,  149;  made 
part  of  colony,  154. 

Morris,  Gouverneur,  to  Pitt,  7. 

Moscos,  42.  See  Mosquito  In- 
dians. 

Mosquito  Coast,  limits  of,  42, 
51-58,  189,  190;  in  Central 
America,  43,  94,  98,  140  n. ; 
visited  by  British  officials, 
47;    sovereignty   of,    51-59, 

196,  212,  213;  dominion 
over,  53,  94,  101,  192,  195, 
196;  144,  150,  216,  227. 
See  Dominion  Great 
Britain. 

Mosquito  Indians,  42-47,  51,  52, 
204;  rights  in  San  Juan 
River,  61,  91;  protectorate 
over,  62,  63,  91-108,  148, 
159,  161,  192,  193,  194,  195, 

197,  199,208,209-215,  217- 
219,  223;  number  of,  63, 
204;  sovereignty  of,  65, 
193;  territorial  rights  of, 
95,  96,  208,  212-217;  self- 
government  secured  to,  101, 
102;  to  be  paid  $50,000, 
102;  as  allies  of  Great 
Britain,  106.  See  Mos- 
quito   Coast.     Indians. 

Mosquito  Kingdom,  99,  100; 
flag  of,  45,  59,  153;  King 
of,  46,  47,  59,  101,  196, 
197,  203,  204,  207,  212;  not 
recognized  by  Nicaragua, 
53;  maps  of,  54,  55;  Brit- 
ish protection  of,  57,  63, 
217;  reduced  to  a  dis- 
trict, 101,  104,  115;  dis- 
trict abolished,  104.  See 
Mosquito  Coast.  Mosquito 
Indians. 


243 


Index 


MouBtiqua,  42.  See  Mosquito 
Indians. 

Negroes,  carried  away  by  Brit- 
ish, 10;  crossed  with  In- 
dians, 43.     See  Slaves. 

Nelson,  Horatio,  in  expedition 
up  San  Juan  River,  106. 

Neutralization,  65,  82,  105,  224. 

New  Granada,  Mosquito  Coast 
transferred  to,  57,  58;  her 
title  to  San  Juan  River, 
61;  partly  in  Central 
America,  144.  See  Colom- 
hia. 

New  Mexico,  58  n. 

New  Segovia,  jurisdiction,  190. 

New  Spain,  vice-royalty,  40. 

New  York,  evacuation  of,  7; 
distance  of,  from  San 
Francisco,  38. 

Niagara,  evacuation  of,   15. 

Nicaragua,  Lake,  59,  63,  226. 
province,  40,  47,  51. 
republic,  constitution  of,  52; 
takes  possession  of  San 
Juan,  54;  remonstrates  on 
British  occupation  of  San 
Juan,  56,  57;  retakes  San 
Juan,  58;  rights  in  San 
Juan  River,  61,  91;  in  Bay 
of  Fonseca,  61;  encroached 
upon  by  Great  Britain,  63; 
treaty  with  U.  S.,  64,  68; 
part  of  Mosquito  Coast 
transferred  to,  101,  102; 
projected  canal  across,  61, 
64-67,  105,  161-164,  190, 
194,  203;  190;  to  pay  Mos- 
quito Indians  $50,000,  102, 
141,  144;  sovereignty  of, 
192;  under  protection  of 
U.  S.,  200,  206,  207,  208. 


Occupancy,  Indian,  95,  96,  202. 


Occupation  of  territory,  55,  56, 
153,  154,  191,  192;  under 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  81, 
92-94,  96,  97,  124,  158,  159, 
195,  197,  205-208,  216, 
217,  219-221,  224. 

Oregon,  importance  of,  163. 

Orosco,  to  Chatfield,  53  n.; 
Chatfield  to,  100  n. 

Osborne  vs.  Mifflin  Executors, 
11  n. 

Oswegatchie,  evacuation  of,  15. 

Pacific  and  Atlantic  Canal 
Company,   196  n. 

Palmer,  Sir  Roundel  1,  167. 

Palmerston,  Lord,  defines  bound- 
ary of  Mosquito  state,  54; 
Lawrence  to  communicate 
w.ith,  68;  Bulwer  acquaint- 
ed with,  70;  on  rights  of 
American  Indians,  95,  96; 
Bulwer  to,  79,  90,  91,  99; 
assents  to  term  "Central 
America,"  119;  on  term 
"continent  espagnol,"  181; 
desires  settlement  of  Mos- 
quito question,  193;  dis- 
claims British  dominion, 
197,  200,  210,  212,  222;  to 
Bulwer,  117-120,  141;  to 
Castellon,  139  n. ;  Lawrence 
to,  194. 

Panama,  Isthmus  of,  50,  61; 
canal  across,  60;  railroad, 
60,  164. 

Panama  Canal  Act,  180. 

Panama  railroad,  60;  finance 
of,  164. 

Peel,  his  government,  54. 

Phelps,  minister  at  London, 
Bayard  to,  103. 

Pickering,  Bond  to,  17. 

Pierce,  President,  message  to 
Congress,  100,  101. 


244 


Index 


Political     control,     over     Mos- 

Suitos,  50;  under  Clayton- 
lulwer  Treaty,  81,  103, 
218.     See   Dominion. 

Polk,  President,  bis  policy  in 
Central  America,  62,  63; 
reiterates  Monroe  Doctrine, 
202.     See  Clayton,  J.  M. 

Possession,  British,  of  Central 
American  territory,  203, 
204;  disclaimed,  51,  142, 
143;  seemingly  claimed, 
141,  142;  never  claimed, 
142;  said  to  be  admitted, 
157,  158;  denied,  158;  un- 
der Clayton-Buhver  Treaty, 
197,  220,  223,  224;  U.  S., 
222.     See  Dominion. 

Poyais,  in  Central  America, 
144. 

Prometheits,  American  steamer, 
100. 

Protectorate,  over  canal  or  rail- 
way, 83,  89;  over  Mos- 
quitos,  53,  62,  93,  94;  over 
U.  S.  Indians,  202.  See 
Mosquito  Kingdom.  In- 
dians. 

Quanaja,     Bay     Island,      149; 

made  part  of  colony,  154. 
Quarterly   Review,    Bulwer   in, 

194,  195. 
Quebec,  17. 

Quezaltenango,  treaty  of,  152. 
Quijano,  Colonel,  51. 

Railway,   feasibility  of,   across 

continent,      38,      39,      74; 

across   American    Isthmus, 

89. 
Rawden,  Grossbeck  and  Bridg- 

ham,  firm,  196. 
Realejo  harbor,  61. 
Rich,  H.  P.,  commissioner,  19. 


Roatan,  Bay  Island,  discovered 
by  Columbus,  149;  history 
of,  150-154;  Crampton 
terms  it  a  British  posses- 
sion, 157. 

Rocky  Mountains,  as  obstacle, 
38. 

Root  diggers,  Indians,  202. 

Ruatan.     See  Roatan. 

Rush-Bagot  Agreement.  See 
Agreement, 

Russell,  Lord,  desires  settle- 
ment of  Mosquito  question, 
193. 

Rutgers  vs.  Waddington,  11,  12. 

Saint  Lawrence  Canal,  174. 

Saint  Lawrence  River,  176. 

Salvador,  province,  47,  48. 
republic,  52,  141,  144;  remon- 
strates together  with  Los 
Altos,  151. 

Sambos,  42,  43.  See  Mosquito 
Indians. 

San  Francisco,  distance  of, 
from  New  York,  38. 

San  Juan  port,  claimed  for 
Mosquitos,  54;  British  oc- 
cupation of,  55-59,  61,  62, 

66,  67,  194,  208;  name  an- 
glicized to  Grey  town,  56; 
terminus  of  canal,   61,  62, 

67,  148,  203;  conflict  at, 
100,  203,  204;  bombarded 
by  U.  S.  vessel,  100;  de- 
clared a  free  port,  101; 
British  interest  in,  192, 
197,  198,  217. 

San  Juan  River,  as  boundary, 
55,  204;  fleet  sails  to,  58; 
as  route  for  canal,  61,  91, 
203,  227;  British  expedi- 
tion up,  106. 

San  Salvador.     See  Salvador. 

Santa  F6.    See  New  Mexico. 


245 


Index 


Sand,  George,  Bulwer  ac- 
quainted with,  72. 

Sarstoon  River,  111-114,  143, 
147. 

Sault  Ste.  Marie  Canal,  176. 

Schenek,  U.  S.  minister,  Lon- 
don, to  Fish,  169,  170; 
British  foreign  secretary 
to,  170. 

Sclopis,  Count  Frederic,  167. 

Seawell,  Henry,  arbitrator,  27. 

Senate  of  U.  S.,  19,  23,  27,  68, 
72,  92,  117;  Clayton- Bul- 
wer Treaty  sent  to,  98; 
not  sent  again,  121,  128  n., 
138;  Clayton's  speeches  in, 
131;  resolution  of,  130;  its 
construction  of  Clavton- 
Bulwer  Treaty,  144-147, 
213,  218,  221,  222,  223;  its 
non-approval  of  treaty, 
157;  and  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington, 170,  171. 

Seward,  W.  H.,  in  senate,  221. 

Shawnees,  202. 

Sibun  River,  110,  112,  143,  147. 

Sitgreaves,  Samuel,  commis- 
sioner, 19  n. 

Slaves,  under  Treaty  of  Ghent, 
24,25,27;  value  of,  25,  28; 
interest  on  value  of,  29,  30. 
See  'Negroes. 

Soconusco,  province,  40,  47, 
48  n. 

Soule,  senator,  on  Clayton-Bul- 
wer  Treaty,   146. 

Sovereignty.  See  Mosquito 
Coast.  Mosquito  Indians. 
British  Honduras. 

Spain,  outlaws  in  war  against, 
40;  policy  of,  41;  Great 
Britain  at  war  with,  43, 
44;  remonstrates  to  Great 
Britain,  43;  declaration  by 
King  of,  44;  makes  conces- 


sions to  Great  Britain, 
110;  sovereign  over  Bel- 
ize, 111.  See  Spaniards. 
Treaty. 

Spaniards,  treatment  of  In- 
dians by,  202,  203. 

Squier,  E.  G.,  charge  d'affaires 
in  Central  America,  65,  66, 
190. 

St.  Clair  Flats  Canal,  174-176. 

St.  John's.     See  San  Juan. 

St.  Mary's  Falls  Canal,  176. 

Staemlli,  Jacques,  arbitrator, 
167. 

Statesmanship,  British  and  U. 
S.,  182,  183. 

Stephen,  King  regent  of  Mos- 
quito Shore,  46. 

Stewardson  administrators  of 
Mildred  vs.  Dorsey,  12  n. 

Suez  Canal,  181. 

Sumner,  Charles,  his  estimate 
of  Alabama  damages,  165, 
166. 

Supreme  Court,  on  the  sphere 
of  treaties,  6;  on  rights  of 
Indians,  202. 

Switzerland,  President  of,  167. 

Talleyrand,   Prince,  70,  72. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  President, 
message  to  Congress,  50  n. ; 
his  policy  in  Central 
America,  64,  65;  replies  to 
Bulwer,  77;  sends  Clayton- 
Bulwer  Treaty  to  Senate, 
98;  ratifies  it,  116;  under- 
standing of  term  "Central 
America,"  139 ;  as  to  bound- 
ary of  Guatemala,  143; 
non-approval  by,  157;  his 
full   power  to  Clayton,  226. 

Tegucigalpa,  district,   190. 

Tenterden,  Lord,  agent  of  Great 
Britain,  167,  172. 


246 


Index 


Tigre  Island,  66,  190. 

Trans-isthmian  canal,  37,  38, 
192,  210,226;  route  for,  61; 
192,  203,  214;  construction 
of,  to  be  protected,  83;  to 
be  protected,  84,  86,  88,  89; 
Nicaraguan,  never  built, 
105 ;  neutrality  of,  84,  224. 
See  San  Juan,  San  Juan 
River,  Nicaragua. 

Travis,  I.  D.,  works  of,  on  Cen- 
tral America,  40  n. 

Treaties,   law  of   land,   6.     See 

Treaty.  United  States.  Great 
Britain. 

Treaty,  first,  of  peace  (1783, 
1784),3, 11, 18,  23, 183:  Jay 
(1795),  3,  4,  13-18,  183;  of 
Greenville  (1795),  16-18; 
of  Ghent  (1815),  22-25, 
183;  mth  France  (1803), 
31;  with  Spain  (1819),  31; 
with  Great  Britain  (1854), 
35 ;  of  Washington  ( 1871 ) , 
35,  165-180,  183,  227-229; 
Clayton-Bulwer  ( 1850) ,  37- 
108,  183,  194-227;  text  of 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty,  79 ; 
Great  Britain  with  Spain 
(1814),  47,  150;  of  Gua- 
dalupe Hidalgo  (1848), 
58  n.,  203;  of  Great  Brit- 
ain with  Nicaragua.  March 
7,  1848,  59;  U.  S.  with 
New  Granada  (1846),  60, 
73;  Hise-Selva  (1849),  64, 
65,  68;  Squier  with  Nica- 
ragua (1849),  65,  210,  214; 
Squier  with  Honduras 
(1849),  66,  190;  of  Mana- 
gua (1860),  101,  104, 
148;  Anglo-Spanish  (1763- 
1783),  110,  181;  Anglo- 
Spanish    (1786),   110,   157. 


158;         Anglo-Guatemalan 

(1859),  114,  148;  Great 
Britain  and  Honduras 
(1859),  101,  148,  149;  of 
Quezaltenango  (1839),  151, 
152.  See  Convention. 
Agreement.     Concession. 

Union  Pacific  Railway,  success 
of,  39. 

United  States,  treaties,  etc., 
broken  bv,  (1783)  6,  10-13, 
183,  (1795)  21,  183, 
(1818)  34,  183,  (1819) 
35,  36,  183;  union  of,  8; 
government  of,  to  compen- 
sate for  losses,  18,  20,  83- 
85,  87,  88,  90,  103,  117;  its 
interest  in  trans-isthmian 
communication.  38,  39,  59- 
61,  65-68,  73-75,  161-163, 
205 ;  declines  cooperating 
with  Great  Britain,  103; 
said  to  have  proposed  Clay- 
ton-Bulwer Treaty,  160- 
164;  President  of,  19,  68, 
166,  167,  177,  178,  198,201, 
207,  208,  213,  214,  221; 
treaty  dispute  with  Can- 
ada, 174;  protector  of 
Nicaragua,  200,  206-208. 
See  Polk.     Taylor.     Grant. 

Upper  Lakes,  war  vessels  on, 
32-34. 

Utilla,  Bay  Island,  149;  made 
part  of  colony,  154. 

Van  Rensselaer,  G.,  Clinton  to, 

49. 
Vancouver  Island,  coal  of.  163. 
Vanderbilt,   Cornelius,   196  n. 
Vera    Cruz,    British    fleet    sails 

from,  58. 
Vera  Paz,  department,  112. 
Victoria,    Queen    of    England, 


247 


Index 


ratifies  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty,  116;  appoints  arbi- 
trator, 167,  179. 

Vienna,  selection  of  commis- 
sioner from,  177. 

Vixen,  British  war  vessel,  56, 
57;  commander  of,  to  com- 
mandant of  San  Juan,  57, 
58. 

Waits,  M.  R.,  167. 

Wanks  River,  46. 

War,  Revolutionary  (1775- 
1783),  3,  44;  of  1812,  14, 
22,  32,  185;  Great  Britain 
and  Spain  (1796),  150; 
Civil,  in  U.  S.  (1861-1865), 
165;  with  Mexico  (1846- 
1848),  203. 

Webster,  Daniel,  senator,  72; 
Bulwer  to,  125. 

Welland  Canal,  174-176. 

West,  British  ambassador, 
Granville  to,  148. 


.Western  Posts,  4,  5,  7-9,  14-18, 
32. 

White,  J.  L.,  196  n. 

White,  O.  L.,  196  n. 

William  Neale's  Executors  vs. 
Comfort  Sands,  11  n. 

Williams,  Henry  Clay  to,  49. 

Williams,  Mary  W.,  Anglo- 
American  Isthmian  Diplo- 
macy by,  40  n. 

Wittgenstein,  Prince,  69. 

Wolfe,  N.  H.,   196  n. 

Wolverine,  war  vessel,  34. 

Wood  cutters,  41,  42. 

Woolang,  Mosquito  Coast,  46. 

Wyandots,  202. 

Wyld,  James,  his  map  of  Cen- 
tral America,  54. 


Yucatan,  province,  40,  144. 
Zelay^,  province,  104, 


248 


DATE  DUE        ^■^''^-' 

AUG 

!0  71 

PPrn 

Mr    ft     .     «/^-, 

*Uu  2  4  ]97 

GAYLCRD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

